advocate commissioner, there is no question of invoking Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, because only if the prosecution proves that PW6 was appointed as the advocate commissioner, he would become a public servant to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. PW6 has given evidence. In his evidence, he categorically stated that on 23.7.1997, the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana had appointed him as the advocate commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 258/1997. He has specifically stated that he had shown the commission warrant to the petitioner. Not a single question has been asked in cross examination challenging the said categoric evidence adduced by PW6. Of course, it is true that PW6 has not proved any commission warrant as such. But, when the accused did not challenge his evidence that he was appointed as the advocate commissioner and he had shown the commission warrant to the accused and the accused did not ask any questions in cross examination challenging the same, I do not think that it was improper on the part of the Magistrate to accept that evidence in proof of the fact that PW6 was actually appointed as the advocate commissioner and he inspected the property pursuant to the same. Further, admittedly, PW6 had later executed the commission warrant and filed a report before the Munsiff's Court. PW6 could not have foreseen that he would be appointed in the case as an advocate commissioner to inspect the property before his appointment by the court as
