Chennai: The Madras HC has expressed hope that the state government would ensure that there was a videoconferencing facility installed at all criminal courts throughout the state within a year's time. The matter came up before Justice S. Nagamuthu in the course of the hearing of a petition from K Anandan, Superintendent of Prisons in Central Prison in Coimbatore, which sought to quash the proceedings before the District Munsif-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai.
The charge against Anandan was that he had failed to produce an under trial prisoner Chandran before the Valparai magistrate on September 16, 2014 on the expiry of his remand period. Action was initiated against Anandan. Hence, he filed the present petition, contending that he could not produce the accused before the court as there was a local body election to the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation on September 18. Instead, the Judicial Magistrate-II in Coimbatore was authorised to extend Chandran's remand and that of others through video conferencing, he added.
On behalf of the Magistrate, Valaparai, where no videoconferencing facility was available, it was contended that the JM-II had no jurisdiction to do so, that too through video conferencing without any records. Holding that Anandan's action fell under the general exception under Section 79 of the IPC, Justice Nagamuthu quashed the proceedings initiated against him. The judge observed that the remand through videoconference can be made under extreme circumstances preventing the physical production of the accused in the courts, such as natural calamities or a serious law and order problem, involving high risk to the safety of the accused.
This procedure should not become the routine practice of jail authorities. So far as extension of remand was concerned, the court may for its own reasons, resort to remand the accused through the medium of electronic video linkage even in the absence of compelling reasons for the non-production of the accused in person, the judge added. Taking note of the fact that from the centres where there was no video conferencing, it may not be possible for a magistrate to remand the accused in extreme circumstances through video conferencing, the judge directed the government to submit a report with regard to the availability of this facility in the courts.
The ADGP, in his report, submitted that of the total number of 411 criminal courts, 352 were covered by the videoconferencing facility and the remaining 59 in 44 locations had yet to be thus equipped. Similarly, of the total number of 137 prisons, 24, including all the central prisons, special prisons for women, district jails and special sub-jails had this facility. 110 prisons and 44 court locations needed to be provided this facility at a cost of Rs18 crore.
