IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE, J
Jacob – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police ACB / CBI, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request based on age and health. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. receiver's argument on convenience and technology. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's allowance for video conferencing. (Para 6) |
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.)
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 04.10.2024, is corrected and the word 'witness' is directed to be replaced with the word 'accused'.
3.This apart, the learned prosecutor submitted that since the petitioner is 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.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is currently in Bangalore, and if there is any change of place he will notify the same to the trial Co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.