The Madras High Court on Thursday set aside an order passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) here on April 29 directing the Superintendent of the central prison in Bengaluru to produce sidelined AIADMK leader V.K. Sasikala, 62, before the court on May 13 for questioning in a case booked under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh set aside the order on a petition filed by the accused and permitted her to appear for questioning through video-conferencing.
He also accepted a plea made by G. Hema, Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate, that the answers recorded by the magistrate may be sent to the prison for obtaining the signatures of the accused.
ADVERTISEMENT
During the course of arguments, the petitioner’s counsel, R. Rajarathinam, told the court that his client was facing four economic offence cases launched by the ED between 1996 and 2001. One of those cases booked in 1998 was related to purchase of equipments from a foreign supplier for J.Jay TV Private Limited, allegedly without approval from the Reserve Bank of India.
On May 4, 2017, the ACMM passed an order permitting the accused to appear through video-conferencing for framing of charges as well as for questioning on the basis of the chief examination of four prosecution witnesses. She appeared through video-conferencing on June 21, 2017, when she was questioned and charges were framed against her.
However, a new presiding officer who took charge of the ACMM court recently, found that the answers recorded by the court during the questioning on June 21, 2017, had not been countersigned by the accused just because the entire proceedings took place through video-conferencing. He felt that it was not proper to let the answers remain on paper without her signatures.
ADVERTISEMENT
Therefore, he ordered that the accused should be produced in person on May 13 for examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing his order, the accused said she was willing to given an undertaking that she would not plead any prejudice to have been caused to her on account of being questioned through video-conferencing.
Unnecessary spending
Stating that she was suffering from various ailments including backpain, the petitioner said her health would not pemit her to travel from Bengaluru to Chennai and back in a police vehicle.
She said that much time could be saved and would also spare the public exchequer of unnecessary expenditure if she was allowed to appear through video conferencing.