JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

Prayer: Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai vide his letter in Dis.No.6015/201 dated 27.03.2018 under Section 395 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking answer as to the competence of jurisdiction of the trial court in recording the evidence of a witness, residing outside India, through video conference.

1. This matter stands posted pursuant to the communication sent by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, to the Office of the Registrar General, High Court of Madras in D.No.6015 / 2018 dated 27.03.2018.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the accused has got no objection to order for recording evidence of the victim (L.W.1) through video conferencing.

4. The reference has been sought for by the learned trial Judge by extensively quoting a decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Sujay Mitra v. State of West Bengal, reported in while seeking appropriate appropriate direction as to whether the de-facto complainant (L.W.1) can be permitted to depose through video conferencing from Germany.

5. In this connection, we would like to place on record a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the similar issue. Whil