M.R. Shah, J.

1.0. Present Special Criminal Application has been preferred by the petitioner herein original accused for appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad passed below Exh. 12 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2013 dated 15.11.2013, by which, learned trial Court has allowed the said application submitted by the original informant/complainant and has ordered the trial/case to be conducted through Video Conferencing.

1.1. The facts leading to the present application in nutshell are as under:--

"2.1. That the petitioner is an accused of an offence registered vide CRI 28 of 2012 registered with Sarkhej Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That respondent No. 1 herein original informant submitted the application before the learned trial Court vide Exh. 12 requesting to conduct the trial/case via/through Video Conferencing alleging inter alia, that all the accused are very head strong persons and on every adjournment more than 100 persons come in the Court and are giving threats to the informant, his persons and witnesses. It was also alleged that there are all possibilities of danger to his life as well as life of the witnesses and due to such threats, it is likely that he and/or the witnesses may not be able to give evidence/deposition freely and independently and therefore, the same is likely to have ultimate effect on the trial. That the learned trial Court fixed the said application for hearing. That the said application was opposed by the petitioner original accused by filing written reply at Exh. 14. That by impugned order, the learned trial Court has allowed the said application Exh. 12 and has directed that the case to be conducted via/through Video Conferencing and the accused who are in jail may not be brought to the Court.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of trial/case conducted through Video Conferencing, the petitioner herein original accused/one of the accused has preferred present Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

2.0. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused that the learned Judge has materially erred in directing to conduct the trial through Video Conferencing and dispense with the presence of the accused in the Court at the time of recording of evidence before the Court. It is submitted by Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused that as such there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct the trial/case through Video Conferencing. It is submitted that mere availability of Video Conferencing facility is no ground to unilaterally dispense with the presence of the accused in the Court at the time of recording evidence before the Court. It is submitted that trial/case cannot be ordered to be conducted via/through Video Conferencing unless it is so specifically provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner accused that Section 273 of the Code provides that all evidence taken in the course of the trial of other proceedings shall be taken in presence of accused or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. It is submitted that Section 273 of the Code opens up with the words "except as otherwise expressly provided", that means unless and until conducting of the trial via Video Conferencing and taking down evidence through it, is permitted under the procedure expressly provided by 'the Code', no trial can be conducted via Video Conferencing in absence of personal presence of the accused while recording evidence.

2.1. It is submitted that personal presence of the accused while recording evidence was further envisag