ACCUSED CAN GIVE ATTENDANCE BY VC IN COURT USING PAPPU YADAV COURT JUDGEMENT
PERMISSION TO BE TAKEN FROM COURT FOR VC ATTENDANCE. IT WILL SAVE TIME AND MONEY OF ACCUSED
IN 2008 WHEN NO INTERNET WAS THERE SC GIVE PERMISSION TO APPEAR BY VIDEO CONFERENCING
PAPPU YADAV CITATION IS LANDMARK ORDER CAN BE USED FOR PERMISSION
VC FOR ADVOCATE
Karnataka High Court
Sri K Lakshmaiah Reddy vs Sri V Anil Reddy on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Milano Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Egle Footwear Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.2 and has also referred to the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri vs. Sirangi Muralidhar Rao3. Referring to these two judgments, he would contend that the Delhi High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court have permitted the counsel to be present at the time of video conferencing at the remote point with the witness. Referring to the above two judgments, he would further contend that Advocate being an officer of the Court is entitled to be present at court point and remote point and it is his prerogative right and the same cannot be deprived
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed in O.S.No.66/2016 on the file of the III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, the memo dated 25.05.2022 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 is allowed;
(iii) The coordinator at the remote point shall ensure that while recording evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.2, the persons who are permitted to be present at the remote point will not indulge in interfering with his cross-
examination;
(iv) Before commencing with the recording of evidence of petitioner/defendant No.2, the Court shall satisfy itself that the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/defendant No.2 can be seen and heard clearly at the remote point;
(v) The Court shall also monitor and take all necessary precautions that recording of ocular evidence of petitioner/defendant No.2 is conducted by strictly following the Rules.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111486749/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8563798/
32. In fact, in the recent past in the year,2013, the Apex Court in Dr.Kumar Saha Vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee in a medical negligence case, considered the evidence of the foreign expert witnesses by internet/video conferencing in recording of testimonies and cross-examination.
41. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 988. it was held that as a general rule in case where the attendance of accused or witness cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience the Court could consider by way of video conferencing. The Apex Court directed the trial of the case in Patna shall continue without the presence of the appellant- accused by the court dispensing such presence and to the extent possible shall be conducted with the aid of video conferencing.
https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/05_bail/Kalyan_Chandra_Sarkar_vs_Rajesh_Ranjan_@_Pappu_Yadav_&_Anr_on_14_February,_2005.PDF
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124191532/
The Supreme Court in Sakshi vs. Union of India accepted for adopting video conferencing recording of statements /evidence of witness, without physical presence in CouRT
PARA 31. .......Recording of evidence by way of video conferencing vis-a-vis Section 273 Cr.P.C. has been held to be permissible in a recent decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B Desai, [2003] 4 SCC 601.
in the case of Shrimati Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs. Shankarlal Gulabchand and Others (1975) 2 SCC 609 , he would point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court while rendering the above said judgment was of the view that the lawyer appearing in the Court is a class by himself and to compare him with an ordinary agent may be to lose sight of the lawyer as engineer of the rule of law in society.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1521407/ pappu yadav case
Supreme court and various High courts on Evidence to be recorded on video conferencing:
Few instances where Apex court and various other court allowed and denied recording of evidence through video conferencing are :
In State of Maharashtra vs Praful B Desai (Dr.)
Supreme court permitted recording of evidence of witnesses staying abroad through video conferencing.
In Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu … vs State Of Maharashtra:
The court permitted Kasab to appear through video conferencing.
Delhi High Court in International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) vs Madhu Bala Nath
directed courts to have a liberal and pragmatic approach in allowing the witnesses to depose through Video conferencing.
Gujarat High Court Ketan @ Arcit Pravinbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat
gave directions to the State to consider the production of undertrial person in concerned courts through video conferencing.
The Bombay High Court
taking suo-motu cognizance of a letter written by Shaikh Abdul Naeem, who was one of the accused in the Aurangabad Arms Haul case has directed the Maharashtra government to install video conferencing facilities in all courts in the state by the end of March 2017.
Recently in February 2018, it was reported that Jammu bench of Jammu and Kashmir High court
for the first time heard 11 cases listed before Srinagar wing of High court through video conferencing. The Chief Justice of J & K High court, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed had himself heard these cases.
Apex court in Asha Ranjan vs State of Bihar and others, transferred Mohammad Shahabuddin
from Siwan Jail, district Siwan in Bihar, to Tihar Jail, Delhi directing that pending trials shall be conducted by video conferencing by the trial court.
The Division Bench of Madras High Court created history when it conducted the court proceedings over Skype
from Chennai for the first time in a case related to 89 inmates of an unauthorized private children’s Home for girls run by Mose Ministries in Turuchi. In this case, girls rescued from the brothels in Delhi were repatriated and rehabilitated in their hometowns in several parts of India. To avoid any discomfort to them the court decided to take evidence through video conferencing.
SIL Import, USA vs Exim Aides Exporters, Bangalore (1999) 4 SCC 567
In this decision also use of available technology was given a boost. But, it was also held that technologies like internet, email etc. were being used swiftly even before the bill was discussed in parliament. So, if Parliament has decided that notice is to be given in writing, the court cannot ignore this fact. The court assumes that Parliament was well aware of the modern technology available.
Grid Corpn. Of Orissa Ltd. vs AES Corpn. 2002 AIR (SC) 3435
Here supreme court held that it is not necessary for two parties to sit together at one place where an effective consultation can be done through electronic means and remote conferencing, unless, law or any condition specifically mentioned in the contract has binding on them to do so.
Hon’ble Karnataka High court in TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs NRI FILM PRODUCTION ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. (AIR 2003 KANT 148)
held that a witness must file an affidavit or undertaking duly verified by a notary or a judge before he is examined, that the person who is going to depose on screen is the same person who is shown as the witness on the records.
But, in Santhini vs Vijaya Venketesh
The apex court held that Evidence via video conference not permissible in matrimonial cases. If both parties are not present in court, then there less possibility of emotional bond. It can create a dent in the process of settlement. Family court judge should never be the slave of the concept of a speedy trial. Reconciliation requires the presence of both parties at the same time and same place. This if permitted, can defeat the purpose of the whole act.
Comments
Post a Comment