[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
V. Sasikumar vs K. Sathyendran on 9 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2025 IN CMP 2831/2025 IN ST
NO.1102 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
V. SASIKUMAR,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O VASU, PATTARPALLAMKALAM, PALLAM, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM,
MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN
- 678507
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.A.SHAIN
SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.G.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K. SATHYENDRAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KESAVAN,DHARMASOUDHAM, NEAR SAKTHIPEEDAM,
IDAYAMKULAMBU, VANDITHAVALAM P O, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678534
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.A.JENZIA
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
2
SRI.R.MANIKANTAN
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH,
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
3
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.1102/2021
on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Chittur (Trial Court),which has been filed
by the 1st respondent alleging the commission of offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ( Act, in short).
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case that, there is no legally enforceable
debt payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent.
There is an eye witness to the transaction, named
Gopinathan. The said witness is 85 years old. He is sick
and unable to travel from his residence to the Trial Court,
which is situated more than 12 kms away. The said
witness is ready to adduce evidence on behalf of the
petitioner in order to substantiate his defence. However,
due to his ailment, the petitioner filed Annexure A3
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
application, to depute an Advocate Commissioner, to
examine the said witness. Nonetheless, by Annexure A4
order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application on
the ground that there is no provision in the Code of Civil
Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to
appoint an Advocate Commissioner. Annexure A4 order
is hyper technical and pedantic. The Trial Court has gone
wrong in dismissing the application on the ground that
there is no provision of law. Therefore, Annexure A3
application may be allowed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent.
4. The petitioner's limited grievance in the
Crl.M.C is that, in order to prove his defence, he proposes
to examine an eye witness to the transaction,
who is aged 85 years and is now indisposed. Although he
filed an application to appoint an Advocate
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
Commissioner, the same has been dismissed by the
impugned order on the ground that there is no statutory
provision enabling the said course.
5. This Court has promulgated the Electronic
Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ( Rules, in
short), which enables the witness to be examined online
by adopting the electronic video linkage.
6. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC
OnLine 1650], this Court has categorically held that
there is no legal inhibition in permitting a witness to be
examined, charge to be framed and accused to be
questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., by adopting
the electronic video linkage as envisaged under the Rules.
The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in
in Rameshan v. State of Kerala (2025 (6) KHC 545).
7. Taking into consideration the above exposition
of law and the fact that the proposed witness is an
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
octogenarian and who said to be indisposed, I am of the
definite view that the said witness can be permitted to be
examined by adopting the electronic video linkage, which
would meet the interest of justice.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C, is
allowed in the following manner :-
(i) Annexure A4 order is set aside.
(ii) Annexure A3 application is allowed, by permitting
the petitioner to adopt the electronic video linkage
for the limited purpose of examining the proposed
witness named Gopinathan as per the Rules.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce the copy of this order
before the Trial Court, who in turn shall workout
the modalities of examining the above said
witness through the electronic video linkage and
as per the Rules.
(iii) Considering the fact that the complaint is of the
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
year, 2021, the Trial Court is directed to consider
and dispose of the complaint, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rmm/9/2/2026
2026:KER:11571
CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10295 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
19/04/2021.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/04/2021
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO:1.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30/08/2025
FILED BY THE COUNSEL
Annexure A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO:
2831/2025 IN ST 1102/2021 DATED 30/08/2025.
