[S.351 BNSS] Accused Exempted From Personal Appearance Can Answer Questions Virtually Or In Writing: Kerala High Court

Justice C S Dias, delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.

The petitioner, who is facing trial under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, has been granted permanent exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court since he is employed abroad. The petition is filed challenging the order by the trial Court which dismissed the application to allow the counsel to answer the question on behalf of the petitioner, since the accused was unable to return to India to face questioning.

The Court examined Section 351(5) BNSS, which explicitly allows a court to treat a written statement filed by the accused as sufficient compliance with the requirement of personal questioning. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 8 SCC 740] and Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Ltd. [(2008) 8 SCC 447], which laid down the principles for dispensing with physical presence during questioning under Section 313 CrPC in cases of genuine hardship.

The judgment also noted that the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 now empower courts to conduct video linkage facility at all stages of a judicial proceeding.

It further noted that the Rule 11 of the Linkage Rules empowers the Court, in its discretion, to authorise the detention of an accused, framing of charges and the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC.

“ It is also relevant to note that sub-section (2) of Section 251 of BNSS explicitly permits charges to be read and explained to an accused either physically or through audio/video electronic means. The confluence of Section 351 BNSS with the Linkage and Filing Rules embodies the progressive legislative and judicial policy to integrate technology to enhance access to justice.” the court added.

The Court thus observed that there is no impediment in permitting petitioner to answer the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting the procedure laid down in Section 351 (5) of BNSS or by getting his answers recorded via the electronic video linkage under the Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per the procedure under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules.

The Court thus allowed the petition directing the petitioner to adopt either written submission or video linkage.

Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. M C 9203/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670

Counsel for Petitioner: K V Anil Kumar, Radhika S Anil, Nijaz Jaleel

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment