The court holds that technology can be employed to facilitate judicial processes, allowing remote answers under specified conditions, promoting accessibility and efficiency in the justice delivery system.

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

The petitioner, the 2^nd accused in S.C.No.1297 of 2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Punalur (Trial Court), arising from Crime No.83 of 2017 registered by the Pathanapuram Excise Range, Kollam, stands charge sheeted for committing the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act . The prosecution evidence has been completed and the case is now posted for questioning the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, for brevity, corresponding to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Petitioner, who has been granted permanent exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court, is currently employed abroad. In view of his inability to get leave and come down to India immediately, his counsel filed Annexure B application to allow the counsel to answer the questions on behalf of the petitioner. However, by the impugned Annexure C order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the application is filed without an affidavit, as laid down in the decision in Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited and another [(2008) 8 SCC 447]. Annexure C order is illegal, improper, and irregular. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I heard Sri.K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. The Trial Court had granted permanent exemption to the petitioner from appearing for the trial, but subject to the condition that he appears before the Trial Court as and when directed. The case has reached 351 BNSS questioning stage. It is at this juncture that the petitioner's counsel filed Annexure B application to answer the questions on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Section 351 of BNSS reads as follows:

“351. Power to Examine accused(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: PROVIDED that in a summons case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

(5)The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.” (emphasis given)

5. Section 351 of the BNSS expressly enables that the Court may, in a suitable case, permit the accused to file a written statement in lieu of oral examination, which would be deemed as sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement.

6. In Basavaraj R.Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others [(2000) 8 SCC 740], while considering the question whether the accused can be permitted to fil