S.353 CrPC | Bombay High Court Permits Accused With 83% Disability Residing In Haryana To Attend Pronouncement of Judgment Via VC

The Bombay High Court has allowed a man with 83% physical disability accused in a cheating and corruption case and residing in Panipat, Haryana, to attend the pronouncement of judgment in his trial via video conferencing.

Justice MS Karnik held that the same direction passed by the High Court in November 2023 while exempting the man from physical presence in Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for recording of evidence will apply for the pronouncement of judgment.

“I have already reproduced the order dated 03/11/2023 passed by this Court and the same directions as in paragraph 3 of the said order shall apply even for tomorrow's date i.e. 09/01/2024 or any other date when the judgment is to be pronounced by the trial Court”, the court stated.

In the November 2023 order, the court had requested the Principal District Judge, Panipat, to permit the petitioner to avail the video conferencing facility for recording of his evidence. The concerned officer of the Panipat court was to be informed in advance of the date fixed by the Sessions Court in Mumbai. If this facility could not be made available on a particular date, by consultation, an appropriate date suitable for both the sides, should be fixed, the court had directed.

The petitioner Ashwini Kumar Sharma is facing charges under Sections 420, 120B, 419, 384 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is pending before the Special CBI Court. He filed the present writ petition challenging the trial court's order dated December 29, 2023, which highlighted his absence during recent court proceedings, and issued a non-bailable warrant against him. His trial is kept for pronounce of judgment on January 9, 2024.

Sharma, suffering from an 83% disability, had previously secured permission for video conferencing due to a severe head injury. A physical verification conducted by the CBI revealed that he had tremors in his right-hand, difficulty in right shoulder movement, difficulty in movement, and memory issues related to his brain ailment.

Advocate Dilip Shukla for the petitioner argued that his physical condition made it challenging for him to be present during the pronouncement of judgment. Shukla pointed out that, until 2010, he had been physically present but had since attended proceedings through legal representation and video conferencing.

The prosecution opposed the petition and insisted that in compliance with the mandate of the Section 353 of CrPC, the accused must attend the trial Court at the time when the judgment is pronounced.

The petitioner, through advocate Shukla, made a statement that he would not challenge the validity of the judgment only on the grounds of his absence. Shukla further submitted that necessary arrangement will be made by the petitioner's son to take him to the District Court, Panipat for attending pronouncement of judgment through video conferencing. The petitioner had no objection if the officers of the CBI who are at Panipat to accompany him to the District Court at Panipat at the time of pronouncement of judgment.

The court, taking note of the medical evidence, the petitioner's disability, and the earlier order permitting video conferencing, held that the judgment could be pronounced through video conferencing. The court made it clear that the petitioner could seek appropriate recourse in case of an adverse judgment.

Case no. – Writ Petition St. No. 134 of 2024

Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. State Of Maharashtra and Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order