Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

N.Seshasayee vs State Represented By on 4 October, 2024

Author: N.Seshasayee

Bench: N.Seshasayee

                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

                                                Crl.O.P.No.23933 of 2024
                     N.SESHASAYEE, J.

                     This matter though was disposed on 04.10.2024, it came to be listed today

                     under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned

                     Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.)



                     2.The learned prosecutor submitted that the second line of paragraph No.4 it

                     is stated that the witness has been shuttling between Bangalore and Aluva.

                     It must be corrected as accused and not witness. Accordingly, the second

                     word in the second line of paragraph No.4 of the order of this Court dated

                     04.10.2024, is corrected and the word 'witness' is directed to be replaced

                     with the word 'accused'.



                     3.This apart, the learned prosecutor submitted that since the petitioner is

                     available both in Bangalore and Aluva, in terms of the video conferencing in

                     Court Rules 2020 as framed by this Court, he may have to notify the place

                     from where he would be logging in.

                     4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is currently in

                     1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

                     Bangalore, and if there is any change of place he will notify the same to the

                     trial Court.



                     5.Therefore, paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court dated 04.10.2024 will

                     now reads as below:

                                  "6.The petition stands allowed accordingly. The petitioner is
                            directed to notify the trial Court the place where the petitioner
                            would be on the date of framing of the charges in order the Court
                            could frame charges through video conferencing in terms of the
                            video conferencing in Court Rules 2020."


                     6.The Registry is required to carry out necessary correction and host a

                     corrected copy in the official website. It is further directed to issue certified

                     copy of the order at free of charges to the parties. The Registry is also

                     directed to issue the certified copy on or before 30.10.2024.



                                                                                           22.10.2024
                     kas
                                                                               N.SESHASAYEE, J.
                                                                                                     kas


                     2/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                        Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024




                                  Crl.O.P.No.23933 of 2024




                                                 22.10.2024




                     3/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated : 04.10.2024

                                           CORAM : MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                                   CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024

                     Jacob                                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                     State Represented by
                     The Inspector of Police
                     ACB / CBI, Chennai                                                   ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act,
                     2023, to direct the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, for
                     conducting the proceedings by Video Conference and not to insist the
                     physical presence of the accused and also to accept the appearance through
                     Video Conference as per Section 355 of BNSS, Act.


                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai

                                  For Respondent    : Mr.B.Mohan
                                                      Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I)




                     4/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

                                                       ORDER

The petitioner is an octogenarian and according to him he has multiple ailments associated with his age. However, at this ripe age, he is facing the possibility of being charged by the Special Court.

2.He now approaches the Court that given the list of illness of which he is suffering from which includes Parkinson disease, he merely seeks the leave of the Court to frame charges, if at all there is any, through video conferencing through the video link disclosed in the petition.

3.Explaining the back drop of the case, Mr.C.S.S.Pillai, the learned counsel submitted that sometime in 2007 C.B.I. registered a case against five accused persons, and laid a charge sheet sometime in 2016. Now, based on certain statement, the trial Court suo motu included the present petitioner U/s.319 Cr.P.C. at the time when not even charges have been framed. Be that as it may, yet another accused person who was identically placed as that of the petitioner had filed a petition challenging his inclusion U/s.319 Cr.P.C. before this Court and was unsuccessful here. He, therefore, took the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024 matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but pendente lite he passed away. It is in these circumstances the charges in the 17 year old case are yet to be framed.

4.Mr.B.Mohan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.) submitted that the witness has been shuttling between Bangalore in Karnataka and Aluva in Kerala, but he is only hesitant to come to Court.

5.Framing charges is the responsibility of the Court, and here is a litigant who is willing to submit to it. It is imperative, life is made least inconvenient to litigants, and merely because some one faces criminal accusation and is required to defend the charge, does not necessarily imply he has to surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in trial. Once the investigation is over and the final report is taken on record by the Court concerned, then it becomes the responsibility of the Court to frame charges. Therefore, wherever possible the Court may have to resort to technology to make life less cumbersome and most convenient for all 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024 concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, 2023, and the purpose it contemplates will be defeated if the Courts were to insist on archaic methods that it has been adopting thus far. After all, framing of charges is part of procedure and procedure surely is a hand maid of justice. Even where trial Court has taken cognizance prior to the advent of BNSS, 2023, inasmuch as Explanation to Section 355 BNSS Act, 2023, only shows the need to incorporate and integrate technology into procedure, this Court, considers it appropriate to resort to the same.

6.This Petition stands allowed accordingly. The trial Court is required to act on the official web copy of this order, if in case the certified copy of the order is not issued to any of the parties before the next posting date before the trial Court.

04.10.2024 kas Index : Yes / No N.SESHASAYEE, J.

kas 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024 To

1.The Inspector of Police ACB / CBI, Chennai

2.The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases Chennai CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024 04.10.2024 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis