Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan, has dismissed a petition challenging an order passed by the Special Judge for POCSO (Mahila) Court, Chennai, which had declined a request to conduct a local inspection of the scene of occurrence in an ongoing trial. The High Court, while refusing to interfere with the lower court’s decision, recorded that the petition invoking Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was without merit and noted that the trial had progressed beyond the evidentiary stage. The Court stated, “this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order of the Court below and there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

The Single Bench also observed that Section 310 Cr.P.C. confers a discretionary power on the presiding officer and does not impose a mandatory obligation to inspect the scene of occurrence in every case. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Orders, States “No Substantial Question of Environment Involved” and Finds Tribunal “Clearly Exceeded Its Jurisdiction” in Auroville Case

The Court did not impose any penalties or injunctions and confirmed that the trial process may proceed without the requested inspection.

The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the order dated 19.02.2025 of the Special Judge for POCSO (Mahila) Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2021. The petitioner, arrayed as the accused in a case registered under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, filed an application under Section 310 Cr.P.C. seeking a local inspection of the alleged crime scene.

The petitioner argued that the rough sketch provided by the prosecution was insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the scene of occurrence. The petitioner contended that “no proper understanding could be derived from the rough sketch provided by the prosecution and the rough sketch does not give any idea in aiding the Court to come to a conclusion.” The counsel submitted that to appreciate the evidence properly, the inspection was necessary.

The petitioner alleged that the case was lodged falsely to wreak vengeance, using P.W.3 as a victim. The petitioner's counsel contended that the absence of a clear depiction of the scene left ambiguities in the prosecution’s case, which required a local inspection by the court under Section 310 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition. It was submitted that the trial had already advanced to the stage of arguments, with all witnesses from both sides having been examined. The prosecution argued that the petition for a local inspection was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings. The prosecution submitted that the trial court had appropriately considered the evidence on record and found no requirement for local inspection.

The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s plea for inspection, holding that there was no necessity arising from the evidence to warrant such an action, as the material on record was sufficient for adjudication.

Justice P. Velmurugan examined the arguments presented by both sides, along with the materials available on record. The Court recorded that Section 310 Cr.P.C. grants discretionary powers to the presiding officer, stating that “Section 310 Cr.P.C., is not mandatory, and it confers only discretionary power on the Presiding Officer, who deals with the case, to visit the place of occurrence.”

The Court elaborated on the purpose of Section 310 Cr.P.C., explaining that the provision allows for local inspection if the presiding officer has doubts or if it is deemed necessary to remove ambiguity or ensure proper identification of the place of occurrence. The Court reproduced Section 310(1) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.”

The Court then stated that in the present case, the trial had reached the stage of final arguments and that both parties had closed their evidence. The Court recorded that there was no necessity arising from the evidence requiring a local inspection. The Bench observed that “it is not mandatory in every case to conduct inspection where the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place.”

Also Read: “The State Wants to Play with the Life of the Petitioner”: Karnataka High Court Orders Release of Withheld Pension and Benefits to Retired Principal, Warns of Daily Penalty for Delay

Justice P. Velmurugan stated that the learned Special Judge had considered the available evidence and concluded that it was sufficient to appreciate the case without requiring a local inspection of the scene. The High Court held that the lower court had exercised its discretion appropriately, noting that “the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the petition by holding that, no necessity arose from the evidence to inspect the scene of occurrence, as the materials are crystal clear without any ambiguity.”

The Madras High Court, having found no merit in the revision petition, dismissed the matter. The Court directed, “Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: D. Percivul Pericles

For the Respondent: S. Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: xxx vs State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No.445 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan

[Read/Download order]