ORDER : The de facto complainant in C.C.No.5 of 2015, aggrieved by the non-compliance of C.A.No.64 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 5 of 2015, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, has directed this revision. 2. In this case, the prosecution obtained Handwriting Expert's Report based on certain questioned documents and certain admitted documents. The Report of the Handwriting Expert has been furnished to the accused. Now, the request is not coming from the accused, it is coming from the victim / Decided On : facto complainant. Admittedly, the complainant got the copy of the Handwriting Expert's Report. He filed C.A.No.64 of 2016 for furnishing him he questioned document and the admitted document, which were compared by the Expert in giving his opinion. 3. The learned Magistrate, by his impugned Order, dated 29.06.2016, denied him furnishing of certified copy of the documents sought for. However, the learned Magistrate observed that after getting prior permission from the Magistrate the de facto complainant can peruse the document on any working day in the presence of the Head Clerk. 4. The legality or correctness of the same is being questioned in this revision by the de facto complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that almost under similar circumstances, this Court (by me) in Sankar v. H.D.F.C.Bank Ltd., [Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2016, dated 28.03.2016], considering the principle of transparency, directed the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to comply the request of the petitioner therein to furnish him copies of certain documents, when especially C.M.M.Court is a Criminal Court and the proceedings were initiated in a Criminal Court. 6. As per Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and Section 303 Cr.P.C., an accused is entitled to have documents to put effective defence. But, the Decided On : facto complainant is not going to defend. Actually, he will prosecute the accused, whether it is a Police case or a private case. A party to the criminal case can seek any part of the Criminal Court's record, provided he must give reasons for the same, because the Court must be satisfied that he will not be used to misuse it. 7. Further, the de facto complainant is a complainant in a criminal case. He is the real victim and the Police is only a de jure complainant. The Decided On : facto complainant will not misuse it. 7. Further, the de facto complainant is a complainant in a criminal case. He is the real victim and the Police is only a de jure complainant. The Decided On : facto complainant will not misuse it. For the connected case proceedings, he needs the same. He may use it for the present case also. Further, those documents are not classified documents or secret documents and if they are given the affairs and the relationship of countries will not get spoiled. The decision in Shankar (supra) applies to this case. 8. Ordered as under: (i) This revision is allowed. (ii) The impugned order, dated 29.06.2016, passed in C.A.No.64 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 5 of 2015, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, is set aside. (iii) The learned Magistrate will comply C.A.No.64 of 2016 without any delay.