T. VENKATESH NAIK
Mahadev – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioner is accused and respondent is complainant - State.
3. The accused has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dtd. 5/6/2023 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Vijayapur in C.C. No.94/2017, wherein the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Vijayapura allowed the application filed by accused under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C., and recalled PW5 to tender crossexamination through video conferencing.
4. The brief facts of the case: On 27/6/2017 at about 01:15 p.m., PW5 - the Presiding Officer i.e., Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura was giving dictation to her Stenographer in O.S. No.160/2005, at that time, accused entered her Chamber, took quarrel with her in respect of not signing of GIS bill, abused her, insisted to sign on GIS bill, made criminal intimidation, while discharging public duty. On the basis of complainant - respondent, Police registered case, investigated matter and filed ch
The court established that video conferencing is a permissible method for recording witness testimony under the amended provisions of the Cr.P.C., and that such methods do not infringe upon the right....
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
Judicial endorsement of video conferencing for evidence collection is mandated, emphasizing modern practices should not be obstructed by technicalities.
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the complexity of issues involved in a suit before allowing a party to lead evidence through video conferencing and highlighted the requirement of c....
The defense counsel cannot undo earlier omissions through subsequent applications under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and must be completely aware of the necessity of putting exculpatory defenses to the wit....
The main legal point established is the permissibility of cross-examination through video conferencing, supported by the legislative backing provided by the Rules of 2020 and the interpretation of se....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.