The Madras High Court today dismissed the plea of an accused in a "bomb hurling" case that sought an inspection of the site by a judicial magistrate, saying such inspections cannot be interchanged for investigation.
Justice P Devadoss of the court's Madurai bench observed that though Criminal Procedure code enabled the magistrate and judges to make local inspections, it cannot be a substitute for collection of evidence.
Such inspections cannot be interchanged for investigation, the judge said.
Petitioner Pasumpon Pandian, who is one of the eight accused in the case related to hurling of a bomb at the office of State Minister Sellur K Raju in January, stated that if the magistrate inspected the site, it would throw much light on the case.
Dismissing the plea, the court said: "Evidence should be recorded in the trial court. The inspection can take place any time. But it should be intended for the purpose of appreciation of evidence adduced before the court."
"If the court finds that the evidence presented certain features and the need arises to see the very place so as to appreciate the evidence, then local inspection can be done."
"In this case, the local inspection could arise when the Investigating Officer completed his investigation, filed final report and also submitted materials as to the place of occurrence and the witnesses gave evidence in order to appreciate the evidence and witness. Now such an inspection was premature," the judge said.
