Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy delivered the common order while deciding three connected Criminal Original Petitions arising from a prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the prosecution, while allowing petitions challenging the Magistrate's refusal to entertain applications seeking appearance through video conferencing.

Appearance

Senior Advocate K.P. Anantha Krishna appeared for the petitioners in the quash proceedings, while Ashwinkumar appeared for the petitioners in the proceedings relating to permission for appearance through video conferencing.

Background

The prosecution arose out of a complaint alleging that samples of mint chutney collected from the petitioners' establishment contained prohibited artificial colouring agents. The Directors sought quashing of the criminal complaint, contending, among other things, that only the nominated Food Safety Officer under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act could be prosecuted. Separately, the accused challenged the Magistrate's refusal to entertain applications seeking permission to participate in proceedings through video conferencing. One accused was a 71-year-old resident of Hyderabad suffering from age-related ailments, while another was residing in Texas, United States.

Quash Petition Dismissed

Rejecting the quash petition, the High Court held that a second quash petition was not maintainable after an earlier petition had been dismissed on merits and the dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court also held that the protection available to a nominated officer under Section 66(1) could not shield Directors where the alleged offence was attributable to company policy, noting that Section 66(2) specifically fastens criminal liability on Directors where the offence is committed with their consent, connivance or neglect.

Court Examines Scope of Video Conferencing

The principal issue before the Court was whether an accused could be permitted to appear and answer charges through video conferencing in proceedings governed by the CrPC.

The Court noted that although Section 530 BNSS expressly enables electronic trials, the present prosecution continued to be governed by the CrPC by virtue of Section 531 BNSS. Nevertheless, it observed that the absence of an express provision under the CrPC did not amount to a prohibition against virtual participation. The Court relied upon the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, the Supreme Court Model Video Conferencing Rules, 2021, and the proposed Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026, to hold that appropriate safeguards already exist for conducting criminal proceedings electronically.

Guidelines Issued

The Court laid down the following broad principles for trial courts while exercising discretion regarding video conferencing:

Under the BNSS, charges may be put to an accused either physically or through audio-video means, and similar discretion may be exercised in summons and summary trials where appropriate.

Accused persons residing in distant places or foreign countries may ordinarily be permitted to attend routine hearings through video conferencing if it facilitates the progress of the case.

Recording of evidence through remote locations may be permitted only where the Court is satisfied that the integrity and fairness of the process are adequately protected.

A distinction must be drawn between persons residing abroad for genuine employment or personal reasons and fugitives, economic offenders or persons attempting to evade the criminal justice system. Permission should ordinarily be refused in the latter category.

Virtual appearance should not be permitted where the physical presence of the accused is necessary for investigation, recovery of material, or protection of victims' rights.

Trial courts should adopt a pragmatic approach in permitting overseas professionals to participate virtually where criminal cases remain pending merely because of their inability to remain physically present in India.

Relief Granted

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the accused were residing outside Chennai due to their avocation and not to evade the judicial process. Since the matter was only at the stage of first appearance and questioning, the Court permitted the accused to participate through approved remote sites.

The Court directed that:

the accused may appear through video conferencing for first appearance and questioning;

their counsel shall identify them before the trial court;

their answers may be recorded through audio-video means;

their personal appearance shall remain dispensed with for subsequent hearings so long as they are represented by counsel and the trial proceeds smoothly; and

they shall, however, remain physically present before the trial court at the conclusion of the trial.

The judgment is expected to provide valuable guidance to trial courts dealing with requests for virtual participation by accused persons residing outside the State or abroad while balancing technological advancement with procedural fairness.

Click here to read/download Order