Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, Savanur Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
High Court Of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7338 of 2020
Decided On : 15-06-2020
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that while the statutory provisions regarding remand proceedings must be followed, the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for video conferencing in very limited cases, as deemed lawful by the directions issued by the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Video Conferencing - Remand Proceedings - Constitution of India, Article 22(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 57, Section 167 - The court discussed the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 57 and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It highlighted the requirement of producing the accused before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, the limitation on police custody, and the procedure for investigation when it cannot be completed within 24 hours. The court also considered the Rules for Video Conferencing Hearing and the orders passed by the Apex Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing video conferencing for court proceedings to reduce the need for physical presence.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the issue of conducting remand proceedings under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by using video conferencing due to the exceptional situation created by the spread of Novel Corona Virus. It discussed instances where the accused or police personnel tested positive for COVID-19 after remand proceedings, leading to the closure of courts for sanitization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the law requires the physical production of the accused before the Magistrate for remand proceedings, the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for video conferencing in very limited cases, as deemed lawful by the directions issued by the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the conflict between the statutory requirement of physical production of the accused before the Magistrate and the exceptional circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the need for video conferencing in certain cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 57 and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be followed, but acknowledged the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, allowing for video conferencing in limited cases as deemed lawful by the directions issued by the Apex Court under Article 142.
Final Decision: The court concluded that in very exceptional cases, the first remand may be permitted through video conferencing, as deemed lawful by the directions issued by the Apex Court under Article 142, despite the statutory requirement of physical production of the accused before the Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
1. On the earlier dates, we have heard the learned counsel on the issue of conducting remand proceedings under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') by use of Video Conferencing(electronic video linkage). This is in the context of a very exceptional situation created by spread of Novel Corona Virus. During last three weeks, the number of persons tested positive for Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) in the State is ever rising. There are few instances in the State where immediately after remand proceedings, either the accused or the police personnel who brought the accused to the Court of a learned Magistrate were tested positive. Due to such situation, two judicial officers in the State and the members of the staff working in the Court have been forced to undergo fourteen days' quarantine. In one case, where a police personnel who brought the accused before the Court for remand proceedings was tested positive. As a result, the concerned Public Prosecutor who appeared before the Court and two learned Advocates who were present before the Court for representing the accused are also undergoing home quarantine for fourteen days. As a result of these incidents, the concerned Courts were required to be kept closed for one or two days for the purpose of sanitization.
2. With the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing before us and especially Shri C.V. Nagesh, we have gone through the legal provisions touching the controversy. There are three relevant provisions which are material.
3. The first is clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India which reads thus:
"22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases -
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary or the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate."
(Emphasis added)
4. The second is Section 57 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:
"57. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours - No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167, exceed twentyfour hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court".
5. The third relevant legal provision is Section 167 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:
"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.-
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is wellfounded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that-
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period
