(1.) Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1216 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi. The case originated from Crime No.1731 of 2014 registered at the Palluruthy Police Station for the offence under Sec. 420 read with 34 of IPC against petitioner and two others. On filing of final report, the case was numbered as C.C.No.1584 of 2015 and after trial and final hearing, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment. The petitioner having remained absent on the date of judgment, her case was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.1216 of 2022, and judgment pronounced in the case of the other two accused, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 each.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client, aged 84 years, was disabled from being present on the date of judgment as she is suffering from colon cancer (carcinoma rectum middle third). Even though a petition under Sec. 353 read with 205 of Cr.P.C, to exempt petitioner from personal appearance and permit her counsel to receive the judgment was submitted, trial court rejected the petition as per Annexure A-5 order. It is submitted that the petitioner is even now bedridden and in her present condition, it is not possible for her to be present in court. Referring to the proviso to Sec. 353(6) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, it is contended that since two out of the three accused were present in court on the date of judgment, the learned Magistrate could have pronounced judgment in the petitioner's case also, notwithstanding her absence. It is the contention of the learned counsel that this Court, in exercise of the inherent power vested with it under Sec. 482 of the Code, can permit the petitioner to appear in court through virtual mode on the date of judgment.
(3.) I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.