Criminal Accusation Doesn't Imply One Should Surrender All Comforts To Participate In Trial: Madras HC Grants Relief To Octogenarian Accused

Justice N Seshasayee observed that merely because a person was facing criminal accusations, it would not imply that he should surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in the trial proceedings. The court added that it was imperative to make life of litigants least convenient. The court added that courts must always resort to technology whenever possible to make life more convenient for all concerned.

“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...Therefore, wherever possible the Court may have to resort to technology to make life less cumbersome and most convenient for all concerned,” the court observed.

The court added that as per Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, personal attendance of the accused also included his attendance through audio-video electronic means. The court noted that the explanation showed the need to incorporate and integrate technology into the procedure and it was appropriate for the courts to resort to the same.

The court was hearing a petition by Jacob filed under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent power of High Court) to direct the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases in Chennai to conduct proceedings through video conferencing and not to insist on physical appearance of the accused. Jacob pointed out that he was an octogenarian and had multiple ailments associated with his age including Parkinson disease. He thus sought to leave of the court to frame charges through video conferencing.

Jacob informed the court that the CBI had registered the case in 2007 against 5 persons and the chargesheet was filed in 2016. Later, the trial court, based on some documents had suo motu included Jacob into the proceedings under Section 319 of the IPC. Advocate CSS Pillai, appearing for Jacob argued that insistence on the physical presence would only defeat the purpose of explanation to Section 355 and urged the court to not insist on the archaic methods.

The Government Advocate however objected to the petition and pointed out that Jacob had been travelling to Karnataka and Kerala and was only hesitant to come to court.

The court however observed that framing of charges was only a part of the procedure and the procedures itself was a hand maid of justice. Thus, considering the need to incorporate technology, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.S.S.Pillai

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Mohan Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

Case Title: Jacob v The State

Case No: CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024