The court emphasizes the integration of technology in legal proceedings to facilitate participation, particularly for senior litigants in light of health issues.

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 Court.

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

"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."

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.kas22.10.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04.10.2024 CORAM : MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE CRL.O.P.No.23933 of 2024 Jacob ... Petitioner Vs.State Represented by The Inspector of Police ACB / CBI, Chennai ... Respondent 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.

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

ORDER

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.

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.

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 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.

4.Mr.B.Mohan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.) submitted that the witness has been shuttling between Bangalore in Karnataka and Aluva in Kerala, but he is on