The Kerala High Court held that in cases where the accused is physically incapacitated from being present in court and the court pronouncing the judgment is the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, permission can be granted to the accused to appear through virtual mode, provided he/she is on bail.

The Petition before the High Court was filed by the sole accused in a case registered against him and two others under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice V.G.Arun affirmed, “The proviso to Section 353(6) of the Code carves out an exception to this mandate by empowering the court to pronounce judgment even in the absence of one or more accused, if the other accused are in attendance.”

Advocate C.S.Manu represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor M.C.Ashi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On the filing of the final report, the case was numbered and after trial and final hearing, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment. The petitioner having remained absent on the date of judgment, her case was split up, and renumbered. The judgment was pronounced in the case of the other two accused, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client, aged 84 years, was disabled from being present on the date of judgment as she is suffering from colon cancer (carcinoma rectum middle third). Even though a petition under Section 353 read with 205 of Cr.P.C, to exempt the petitioner from personal appearance and permit her counsel to receive the judgment was submitted, the trial court rejected the petition. It was submitted that the petitioner is even now bedridden and in her present condition, she can't be present in court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Section 353(6) of the Code makes the attendance of the accused, other than those in custody, mandatory for hearing the judgment, except in cases where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with during trial and the sentence is one of fine only or when the accused is acquitted. The proviso to Section 353(6) empowers the court to pronounce judgment even in the absence of one or more accused, if the other accused are in attendance.

The Bench noticed that in the present matter, instead of adopting such a procedure, judgment was pronounced in the case of the accused present in court after splitting up the petitioner's case. “...this Court cannot be oblivious to the plight of the petitioner, an aged and sickly lady. In situations like this, the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 can be put to use for securing the ends of justice”, the Bench said while referring to Rule 3(1) which provides for usage of video conferencing facilities at all stages of judicial proceedings, which would include pronouncement of judgment also.

Reference was also made to Section 29(2) of the Code, as per which the maximum sentence that can be imposed by a Magistrate of First Class is imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. Being so, the Magistrate convicting the accused can release him/her on bail under Section 389(3)(i) for such period, so as to afford the accused sufficient time to present appeal and obtain order suspending the sentence. But, for that, the convicted person should be on bail.

The petitioner's bail had been cancelled for reason of her failure to appear in court on the date of judgment. “The pitiable situation in which the petitioner is placed calls for grant of extraordinary relief. Hence, proceedings by which petitioner's bail was cancelled is set aside and the petitioner is declared to be on bail on the strength of bail bonds executed by her earlier”, it held. On the issue as to how the requirement of executing bail bonds can be satisfied, the Bench referred to Section 445 of the Code, which provides for grant of permission to deposit money or Government Promissory notes in lieu of bonds.

“The above discussion leads to the conclusion that in cases where the accused is physically incapacitated from being present in court for the purpose of hearing the judgment and the court pronouncing the judgment is the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, permission can be granted to the accused to appear through virtual mode, provided he/she is on bail”, the Bench clarified.

The High Court thus disposed of the Petition by permitting him to appear through virtual mode on the date fixed for pronouncement of judgment by the jurisdictional Magistrate following the procedure prescribed in the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021.

Cause Title: Chinnamma George v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:11408)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates C.S.Manu, Dilu Joseph, C.A. Anupaman, T.B.Sivaprasad, C.Y.Vijay Kumar, Manju E.R., Anandhu Satheesh, Alint Joseph, Paul Jose

Respondent: Public Prosecutor M.C.Ashi

Click here to read/download Order









Kerala High CourtJustice V. G. ArunCode of Criminal ProcedureIndian Penal Code

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.