ORDER : N. SESHASAYEE, J. The petitioner is an octogenarian and according to him he has multiple ailments associated with his age. However, at this ripe age, he is facing the possibility of being charged by the Special Court. 2. He now approaches the Court that given the list of illness of which he is suffering from which includes Parkinson disease, he merely seeks the leave of the Court to frame charges, if at all there is any, through video conferencing through the video link disclosed in the petition. 3. Explaining the back drop of the case, Mr.C.S.S.Pillai, the learned counsel submitted that sometime in 2007 C.B.I. registered a case against five accused persons, and laid a charge sheet sometime in 2016. Now, based on certain statement, the trial Court suo motu included the present petitioner U/s.319 Cr.P.C. at the time when not even charges have been framed. Be that as it may, yet another accused person who was identically placed as that of the petitioner had filed a petition challenging his inclusion U/s.319 Cr.P.C. before this Court and was unsuccessful here. He, therefore, took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but pendente lite he passed away. It is in these circumstances the charges in the 17 year old case are yet to be framed. 4. Mr.B.Mohan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.) submitted that the accused has been shuttling between Bangalore in Karnataka and Aluva in Kerala, but he is only hesitant to come to Court. 5. Framing charges is the responsibility of the Court, and here is a litigant who is willing to submit to it. It is imperative, life is made least inconvenient to litigants, and merely because some one faces criminal accusation and is required to defend the charge, does not necessarily imply he has to surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in trial. Once the investigation is over and the final report is taken on record by the Court concerned, then it becomes the responsibility of the Court to frame charges. Therefore, wherever possible the Court may have to resort to technology to make life less cumbersome and most convenient for all concerned. Once the investigation is over and the final report is taken on record by the Court concerned, then it becomes the responsibility of the Court to frame charges. Therefore, wherever possible the Court may have to resort to technology to make life less cumbersome and most convenient for all concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, 2023, and the purpose it contemplates will be defeated if the Courts were to insist on archaic methods that it has been adopting thus far. After all, framing of charges is part of procedure and procedure surely is a hand maid of justice. Even where trial Court has taken cognizance prior to the advent of BNSS, 2023, inasmuch as Explanation to Section 355 BNSS Act, 2023, only shows the need to incorporate and integrate technology into procedure, this Court, considers it appropriate to resort to the same. 6. The petition stands allowed accordingly. The petitioner is directed to notify the trial Court the place where the petitioner would be on the date of framing of the charges in order the Court could frame charges through video conferencing in terms of the video conferencing in Court Rules 2020.