In CRL.M.C. 2357/2022-DEL HC- Delhi HC permits former Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to appear virtually before Trial Court in corruption case hearing
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [20-12-2023]

Read Order: DR. ANBUMANI RAMADOSS v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 2, 2024: The Delhi High Court has allowed the former Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to appear virtually through video-conferencing before the Trial Court in relation to a case of corruption pertaining to medical college admissions.

The petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed on behalf of petitioner, assailing the order passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) in a case registered under Sections 120B/420/465/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The facts, leading to the registration of present RC by the CBI, were that an information was received that some officials of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Chairman of Rohilkhand Medical College, Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of this conspiracy, the officials of Ministry had granted renewal of permission for admission of 100 MBBS students in the medical college.

It was discovered by the CBI that the medical college had been granted permission by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India for admission of its first & second batches of  MBBS students, for the sessions 2006-07 &  2007-08. However, in the year 2008-09, Medical Council of India had found that the college was not meeting the prescribed norms and had shortage of infrastructure faculty. Consequently, on 04.09.2008, the executive committee of the Council communicated to the Central Government to not renew the permission for admission of third batch of students in the college and the same was communicated to the college.

During this time, the said medical college had approached the Apex Court acknowledging that there were deficiencies but it had requested that the Government and the Council may consider renewal for a reduced intake of students. The Council opined that the available facilities of the medical college were not sufficient even for a reduced number of MBBS admissions. However, the Ministry accorded renewal of permission for admission of third batch of 100 MBBS students for years 2008-09 to the college.

It was alleged that the Ministry had deputed a Central Team on their own with mala fide intention. Another inspection was conducted by Medical Council after a lapse of only five days and it was found that the shortage of teaching staff was 65.51%. Thus, allegedly, the officers of Ministry had connived with Shri Keshav Kumar Agarwal, Chairman, of the medical college and others, with ulterior motive in granting permission for the period 2008-09. Accordingly, the RC was registered by the CBI.

The accused involved in this case were Dr. K.K. Agarwal, Chairman of Rohilkhand Education Trust, Bareilly (A-1), Dr K.Y.S.Rao, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (A-2), Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss, the then Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare (A-3), Dr. Vindu Amitabh (A-4) and Dr. S.K. Rasania (A-5).

The challenge in this petition was to the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Trial Court, wherein personal appearance of the Former health minister had been exempted subject to a cost of Rs 2,500.

It was the petitioner’s case that the Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned order whereby the application seeking exemption from personal appearance and permission to join through video conferencing was dismissed in a mechanical manner and without any application of judicial mind. The petitioner prayed that he be permitted to appear virtually, due to his permanent residence being in Tamil Nadu, before the Trial Court without any conditions, and the impugned order be set aside.

Refereeing to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bench opined that  the scheme of Cr.P.C., through Section 273, provides that as a general rule, all evidence presented during a trial must be taken in the presence of the accused. However, the Cr.P.C. also provides exceptions to this general rule, by virtue of Sections 205 and 317, which contain the law regarding exempting an accused from personal appearance.

Placing reliance upon Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd and Puneet Dalmia v. CBI, the Bench opined that while exercising the discretion to exempt an accused from personal attendance, some important factors such as the nature of the allegations, the conduct of accused, his place of residence, the distance to be travelled for the purpose of making personal appearance before the Court, the physical condition of accused, the necessity of making a personal appearance, etc., are to be considered.The law also mandates imposing certain conditions while granting exemption to an accused.

Noting the fact that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, whose family members including parents, children and grand-children reside in Tamil Nadu, the Bench also observed that the case at hand pertains to the year 2010, however, the charges have not yet been framed in this case and the trial has yet not commenced.

The Court was also conscious of the fact that petitioner herein had not prayed for exemption from his personal appearance before the Trial Court, rather had only sought exemption from his 'physical' appearance before the Court.

“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court through virtual mode will not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial”, the Bench held.

Thus, in view of the forgoing discussion, the Bench set aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 and passed certain directions as under:

• The petitioner shall remain present on every date of hearing virtually i.e. through Video-Conferencing before the Trial Court and counsel on behalf of petitioner will remain present physically before the Trial Court.
• Only because the petitioner is appearing through Video- Conferencing, he will not dispute his identity during cross- examination, etc., or at any other stage of trial since he himself is seeking exemption from personal appearance in physical form, and requests that he be allowed to appear through Video- Conferencing.
• The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments before the Trial Court.
• In case the Trial Court will be of the opinion that the physical presence of petitioner is essential, for reasons to be recorded in writing, such an order regarding the dates on which he will be required to appear in person before the Trial Court will be passed in presence of the learned counsel for petitioner or petitioner himself or anyone present on his behalf, at least ten days prior to such date fixed for his appearance before the Court.