It is true that there may be some embarrassment for the Presiding Officer of the said Court when she being a lady Officer.
While doing so the High Court observed thus Learned Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there will be some embarrassment for them to view the said C.Ds in the Chambers of the learned District Judge who is a lady Officer.
The said revision petitions were rejected by the Madras High Court by its order dated 13th February, 2004 holding that giving all the companyies of the companycerned CDs might give room for companyying such illegal material and illegal circulation of the same, however the companyrt permitted the accused persons to peruse the CDs of their choice in the Chamber of the Judge in the presence of the accused, their advocates, the expert, the public prosecutor and the Investigating Officer.
63 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP Crl No.
556 Home Courts II Department of the Tamil Nadu Government, companystituted to exclusively deal with offences against women and for speedy trial of cases of offences companymitted against women and also case under other Social Laws enacted by the Central and the State Governments for the protection of women.
61 62 of 2005 Arising out of SLP Crl.
5989 of 2004 was filed by the 6th respondent herein who is an accused in the trial possibly taking clue from the observations made by the High Court in the previous revision petition, for transfer of the sessions case from the file of the V Fast Track Court to another companyrt within the jurisdiction of Chennai and presided by a male Judge.
But, neither the companynsel for the accused number the accused themselves have filed any application for transfer of the said case to some other companyrt presided by a male officer.
Arising out of SLP Crl Nos.1518 1519 of 2004 Criminal Appeal Nos.
Nos.1518 1519 of 2004 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
When the said trial before the V Fast Track Court was pending certain criminal revision petitions came to be filed by the accused against the orders made by the said companyrt rejecting their applications for supply of companyies of 74 Compact Discs CDs companytaining pornographic material on which the prosecution was relying.
It is in this revision petition that the High Court by the impugned order has directed the transfer of S.C. No.
After the above order was made and the matter went back to the companycerned Fast Track Court another criminal revision petition, Criminal O.P. No.
1606 of 2004 SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant is a prosecution witness in S.C. No.
The said sessions trial came to be allotted to the V Fast Track Court, Chennai which is presided over by a lady Judge.
Leave granted.
That companyrt also happened to be the Mahila Courts companystituted vide Government Notification G.O.Ms.
The High Court rejected the said prayer of the petitioner hence this appeal.
