Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Sharma, was an accused in Criminal Special Case CBI No. 68 of 2013 pending before the Sessions Special CBI Court, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 420, 120B, 419, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner suffered from an 83% disability due to a head injury, as evidenced by a disability certificate. In an earlier round of litigation, the Bombay High Court, by order dated 03/11/2023 in Criminal Writ Petition Stamp No. 18758 of 2023, had directed that the petitioner's evidence could be recorded via video conferencing, as the facility was available in Court No. 52 of the City Civil and Sessions Court. However, on 29/12/2023, when the matter was posted for judgment, the petitioner was absent. The trial court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments due to an accident and could not attend. The trial court then issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the petitioner to secure his presence. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court observed that the trial court had not considered the petitioner's disability or the earlier order permitting video conferencing. The High Court quashed the NBW and directed the trial court to consider the feasibility of recording the petitioner's evidence via video conferencing, as per the earlier order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Non-Bailable Warrant - Issuance of NBW against accused with 83% disability - The trial court issued NBW when the accused was absent on the date of judgment, despite the accused's disability and earlier order permitting video conferencing - Held that the trial court ought to have considered the disability and the earlier order before issuing NBW (Paras 1-3). B) Evidence Recording - Video Conferencing - Accused with disability - The High Court had earlier directed that the accused's evidence be recorded via video conferencing due to his 83% disability - The trial court failed to consider this order while issuing NBW - Held that the trial court should consider the feasibility of recording evidence via video conferencing (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issuance of non-bailable warrant against an accused suffering from 83% disability was justified when the accused had earlier been permitted to record evidence via video conferencing.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court and directed the trial court to consider the feasibility of recording the petitioner's evidence via video conferencing as per the earlier order dated 03/11/2023.
Law Points
- Non-bailable warrant
- disability
- video conferencing
- personal appearance exemption
- Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 420
- 120B
- 419
- 384 IPC
