In a significant ruling blending technology with criminal procedure, the Kerala High Court has permitted an accused working abroad to face questioning under the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) through online or written means. Justice C.S. Dias, delivering the order in Rameshan v. State of Kerala on October 22, 2025, set aside a lower court’s decision that had denied the same.
Background
The case originated from a 2017 excise matter in Pathanapuram, Kollam district, where Rameshan, now 59, was charged under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act-an offence related to the illegal manufacture or possession of liquor.
While the trial had progressed to the stage of questioning under Section 351 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 313 of the old CrPC), Rameshan, employed abroad, sought permission for his counsel to respond on his behalf. The trial court at Punalur rejected this plea, citing lack of an affidavit and reliance on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Ltd.
His lawyer, Sri K.V. Anil Kumar, moved the High Court, arguing that the lower court had ignored the flexibility introduced under the BNSS and Kerala’s Electronic Linkage Rules, 2021.
Court's Observations
Justice Dias began by noting that Section 351(5) of the BNSS explicitly allows courts to accept written statements as sufficient compliance when personal questioning is impractical.
Citing Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000), the judge said a "pragmatic and humanistic approach" must guide such situations.
"If the accused satisfies the court that he is unable to appear except by incurring heavy expenditure or due to physical incapacity, the court can adopt suitable measures," the bench observed.
The court further noted that technology had transformed judicial practice since the pandemic, leading to the introduction of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules and Electronic Filing Rules in Kerala.
"These rules, coupled with BNSS provisions, show a legislative intent to integrate technology to enhance access to justice," Justice Dias remarked.
He pointed out that Rule 11 of the Linkage Rules even allows recording of an accused’s statement via video conferencing.
"There is no legal impediment in allowing the petitioner to answer questions under Section 351 BNSS either in writing or through electronic linkage," the order stated.
The Decision
Setting aside the Punalur trial court’s order, Justice Dias directed that Rameshan be given a choice:
- Submit a written questionnaire, as guided by the Basavaraj Patil precedent, along with an affidavit authenticating his responses; or
- Appear online via video linkage, as permitted under the 2021 Kerala Rules.
The petitioner's counsel was instructed to inform the trial court within two weeks of the preferred method.
With this order, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed its stance that procedural law must evolve with time, blending statutory mandates with the possibilities of technology. The decision also gives relief to hundreds of accused living outside India or in remote areas who face similar logistical barriers.
As Justice Dias concluded, the trial court must now proceed with the case "in accordance with law" after completing the chosen method of questioning.
Case Title:- Rameshan v. State of Kerala
Case Number:- Crl.M.C. No. 9203 of 2025
Date of Judgment:- 22 October 2025