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 rights of the accused when conducted in accordance with established rules.

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 charge-sheet. The Magistrate took cognizance of offence and framed charge against accused. The prosecution to prove it's case, in all examined PW.1 to PW.5. At this juncture the accused filed an appeal before trial Court for recall of PW5. But, trial Court allowed application in part and recalled PW5 to tender for cross-examination through video conferencing. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.,

5. It is contended by the petitioner that he had filed an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court praying to recall PW5 for further crossexamination and also prayed to recall PW5 for crossexamination before Court in-person, but while allowing application the trial Court has not applied liberal approach and recalled PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination inperson before Court and it ordered for recalling PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination through video conferencing only, which is not permissible in law. It is contended that in order to facilitate petitioner to put forth the fact under lacuna during cross-examination it is required to keep present PW5 in-person before Court only.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the trial Court has rightly recalled PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing facility, which is also a recognized mode and hence no grounds are made out to allow the petition.

7. Admittedly, the application filed under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C., cannot be dismissed and it has to be allowed frequently, thus, the Court has to follow liberal approach.

8. On perusal of charge-sheet material the allegation made against accused is in respect of Ss. 353, 448, 504 and 506 of IPC. Records reveal that chiefexamination of PW5 has been completed and at the stage of cross-examination of PW5, accused filed an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C., for recall of PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination in-person before the Court, but the trial Court has rejected the same, on the ground that PW5 being a Judicial Officer working in Bangalore City, it is not possible for the Officer to travel all the way from Bangalore to Vijayapura. Thus, invoked the video conferencing facility for cross-examination of PW5.

9. Recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible. A proviso was inserted to Sub-Sec. (1) to Sec. 275 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Act 5 of 2009 (Code of Criminal Procedure amendment) Act, 2008, which runs as follows:

"Provided that evidence of a witness under this Sub-Sec. may also be recorded by Audio-Video Electronic means in the presence of the Advocate of the person accused of the offence".

Therefore, the trial Court in order to save the Court time as well as PW5, adopted new scientific method, to mitigate the work load of Court