Allowed

Jacob v. the State Rep by

Madras HC4 Oct 2024CRL OP/23933/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An octogenarian accused sought permission to participate in charge-framing proceedings via video conferencing due to age-related ailments including Parkinson's disease. The court allowed the petition under the Explanation to Section 355 BNSS, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: charges to be framed through video conferencing; petitioner to notify trial Court of his place of login; certified copy free of cost on or before 30.10.2024.

Jacob Vs the State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.23933 of 2024

¶3

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶4

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.)

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶13

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

¶14

5.Therefore, paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court dated 04.10.2024 will now reads as below:

¶15

"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."

¶16

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

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.23933 of 2024

¶25

22.10.2024

¶26

3/8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶30

Dated : 04.10.2024

¶31

CORAM : MR. J USTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶32

CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024

Jacob

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

4/8

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶42

ORDER

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

5/8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶49

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.

¶50

4.Mr.B.Mohan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.) submitted that

¶51

the witness has been shuttling between Bangalore in Karnataka and Aluva in Kerala, but he is only hesitant to come to Court.

¶52

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

¶53

6/8

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶64

Crl.R.C.No.23933 of 2024

¶65

¶66

1.The Inspector of Police ACB / CBI, Chennai

¶67

2.The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases Chennai

¶68

CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024

¶69

04.10.2024

¶70

8/8

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Jacob v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sundaramoorthi, M/a 53 Yrs,(Died) Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Arulmani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by

Arunadevi Vs State Rep.by

H.Navya Vs the State Rep by Its

J.Chithambaram Vs State Rep.by

P.Sargunaraj Vs the State, Represented by