ORDER : C.S. DIAS, J. The petitioner, the 2 nd accused in S.C.No.1297 of 2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Punalur (Trial Court), arising from Crime No.83 of 2017 registered by the Pathanapuram Excise Range, Kollam, stands charge sheeted for committing the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act . The prosecution evidence has been completed and the case is now posted for questioning the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, for brevity, corresponding to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Petitioner, who has been granted permanent exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court, is currently employed abroad. In view of his inability to get leave and come down to India immediately, his counsel filed Annexure B application to allow the counsel to answer the questions on behalf of the petitioner. However, by the impugned Annexure C order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the application is filed without an affidavit, as laid down in the decision in Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited and another [ (2008) 8 SCC 447 ]. Annexure C order is illegal, improper, and irregular. Hence, the Crl.M.C. 2. I heard Sri.K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 3. The Trial Court had granted permanent exemption to the petitioner from appearing for the trial, but subject to the condition that he appears before the Trial Court as and when directed. The case has reached 351 BNSS questioning stage. It is at this juncture that the petitioner's counsel filed Annexure B application to answer the questions on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Section 351 of BNSS reads as follows: “351. Power to Examine accused(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: PROVIDED that in a summons case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5)The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.” (emphasis given) 5. Section 351 of the BNSS expressly enables that the Court may, in a suitable case, permit the accused to file a written statement in lieu of oral examination, which would be deemed as sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement. 6. In Basavaraj R.Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others [ (2000) 8 SCC 740 ], while considering the question whether the accused can be permitted to file his written submissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “23. Section 243(1) of the Code enables the accused, who is involved in the trial of warrant case instituted on police report, to put in any written statement. When any such statement is filed the Court is obliged to make it part of the record of the case. Even if such case is not instituted on police report the accused has the same right (vide Section 247). Even the accused involved in offences exclusively triable by the Court of sessions can also exercise such a right to put in written statements [Section 233(2) of the Code]. It is common knowledge that most of such written statements, if not all, are prepared by the counsel of the accused. If such written statements can be treated as statements directly emanating from the accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in special contingencies, be afforded the same worth. 24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies. If such written statements can be treated as statements directly emanating from the accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in special contingencies, be afforded the same worth. 24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word shall in clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code is to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the Court should, in appropriate cases, e.g., if the accused satisfies the court that he is unable to reach the venue of the court, except by bearing huge expenditure or that he is unable to travel the long journey due to physical incapacity or some such other hardship relieve him of such hardship and at the same time adopt a measure to comply with the requirements in Section 313 of the Code in a substantial manner. How this could be achieved? 25. If the accused (who is already exempted from personally appearing in the Court) makes an application to the court praying that he may be allowed to answer the questions without making his physical presence in court on account of justifying exigency the court can pass appropriate orders thereon, provided such application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the accused himself containing the following matters: (a) A narration of facts to satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically present in court for giving such answers. (b) An assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning. (c) An undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case. 26. If the court is satisfied of the genuineness of the statements made by the accused in the said application and affidavit it is open to the court to supply the questionnaire to his advocate (containing the questions which the court might put to him under Section 313 of the Code) and fix the time within which the same has to be returned duly answered by the accused together with a properly authenticated affidavit that those answers were given by the accused himself. He should affix his signature on all the sheets of the answered questionnaire. However, if he does not wish to give any answer to any of the questions he is free to indicate that fact at the appropriate place in the questionnaire [as a matter of precaution the Court may keep photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire before it is supplied to the accused for answers]. If the accused fails to return the questionnaire duly answered as aforesaid within the time or extended time granted by the court, he shall forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from court during such questioning. 27 . In our opinion, if the above course is adopted in exceptional exigency it would not violate the legislative intent envisaged in Section 313 of the Code.” 7. The above principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited (supra). 8. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted life in several ways, it ushered an unprecedented digital transformation in the justice delivery system. It has propelled the judiciary into the digital era, ushering hybrid hearings, which has now become an integral part of the system. 9. Recognising the transformative potential and necessity of technology in ensuring affordable and easy access to justice, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, promulgated the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Electronic Filing Rules for Court (Kerala), 2021 (for brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Linkage Rules' and ‘Filing Rules’). 10. Rule 3 of the Linkage Rules empowers the use of the electronic video linkage facility at all stages of a judicial proceeding. Under Rule 6 of the said Rules, a party to the proceedings or a witness can make an application in the form prescribed in Schedule II for a video linkage. Likewise, under Rule 8(2) and (3) of the same Rules, in criminal cases, where the person to be examined is a prosecution witness, court witness or defence witness, the counsel has to inform the court, the location of the person, the time, the place and the availability of the technical facilities. Where the person to be examined is the accused, then the prosecution shall confirm the location of the accused at the remote point. Where the person to be examined is the accused, then the prosecution shall confirm the location of the accused at the remote point. The manner in which the signature is to be obtained on the transcript is provided under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules. Pertinently, Rule 11 of the Linkage Rules empowers the Court, in its discretion, to authorises the detention of an accused, framing of charges and the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. through the electronic video linkage. Similarly, Rule 6 of the Filing Rules enables a document to be electronically filed with the digital signature of the Advocate and the Party-in-person. 11. More than two decades ago, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B. Desai [ (2003) 4 SCC 601 ] heralded that the recording of evidence via video conferencing on being fully satisfied that the procedure fulfills the requirements under the Cr. P.C. It was held as follows: “18. Thus the law is well settled. The doctrine 'contemporanea exposition est optima et fortissimm' has no application when interpreting a provision of an on - going statute / act like the Criminal Procedure Code. 19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr. Sundaram. It was submitted that video - conferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subject to a procedure involving 'virtual reality'. Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exists. In virtual reality one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one sofa etc. Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in this sight presence and he / she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing - room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in this presence'. Both the person sitting in the stadium and the person in the drawing - room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he / she is present before you on a person. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. The submissions of Respondents counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the 'presence' of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the Accused and / or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the 'presence' of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of S.273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per 'procedure established by law". Thus it is clear that so long as the Accused and / or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the 'presence' of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of S.273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per 'procedure established by law". 20.Recording of evidence by video conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in S.273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the Accused. The Accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded Court room. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to play back would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The Accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of play back would give an added advantage whilst cross examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he / she was in Court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video conferencing. Thus no prejudice, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the Accused. Of course, as set out hereinafter, evidence by Video Conferencing has to be on some conditions”. 12. Post the promulgation of the above Rules, this Court has permitted cross-examination of witness, framing of charges and recording of plea through the electronic video linkage as per the Linkage Rules (Read the decisions in Alex C.Joseph v. State of Kerala ( 2025 (1) KHC 174 ), Abhil C.R v State of Kerala (2025 KHC 1650 and Satheesan v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 2154). The above precedents affirm that this Court has fully endorsed and accepted digital integration, thereby modernising procedural law in tune with contemporary realities and necessities. 13. It is also relevant to note out that sub-section (2) to Section 251 of BNSS allows charges to be read and explained to an accused either physically or through the audio/video electronic means. 14. The above precedents affirm that this Court has fully endorsed and accepted digital integration, thereby modernising procedural law in tune with contemporary realities and necessities. 13. It is also relevant to note out that sub-section (2) to Section 251 of BNSS allows charges to be read and explained to an accused either physically or through the audio/video electronic means. 14. The confluence of Section 351 BNSS with the Linkage and Filing Rules manifests the legislative and judicial policy to integrate technology in promoting access to justice and to enhance procedural efficiency. With Section 351 permitting answers to be recorded through the electronic video linkage and BNSS recognising audio/ video electronic means, and the law accepting technology through the hybrid mode, I don't find any legal impediment in permitting the petitioner's answers to the questions under Section 351 BNSS being recorded through the electronic video linkage as per the Linkage Rules, particularly when he is permanently exempted and employed abroad. Accordingly, I permit the petitioner to answer the questions under Section 351 of the BNSS through the electronic video linkage as per the Linkage Rules, which will save the petitioner’s employment and unnecessary expenditure, and uphold the vision of a modern, robust, accessible, and technology-driven justice delivery system. Nevertheless, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be physically be present before the Trial Court as and when directed. In view of the foregoing discussions, the criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure C order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to submit an application in prescribed form under Schedule II of the Linkage Rules, duly executed with his digital signature as per the Filing Rules, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Form shall also contain an additional statement that the petitioner shall not dispute his identity, that he would strictly adhere to the procedure under the Linkage and Filing Rules and that he shall be physically present before the Trial Court, as and when directed. On receipt of the online Form, the Trial Court shall consider the Form and pass orders on the same, in accordance with the law. Until such time orders are passed, all further proceedings in S.C.No.1297/2020 shall stand deferred.