IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 59290 of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Judgment
Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) vide which the application filed by the petitioner for getting his statement recorded by way of video conferencing through server room at the Civil Court, Dasuya has been illegally and erroneously dismissed in FIR No.144 dated 13.09.2019 registered under Section 408 IPC at the Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur as well as order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby evidence of the prosecution has been closed by court order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is the complainant in the aforementioned FIR. The trial of the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya. The petitioner is permanent resident of Canada and at the time of the recording of the prosecution witness, an application was filed by the learned additional public prosecutor for recording the statement of the petitioner through video conferencing facility. The learned trial Court initially allowed the application vide order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) and directed recording evidence of the petitioner as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 770. However, evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded through the Coordinators at the Indian and Canadian Embassy due to frayed diplomatic relations between both the countries at that time. The petitioner once again requested the learned trial Court by filing application on 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), however, the said application was dismissed by the order of even date. On 09.10.2023, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that the diplomatic relationship between the India and Canada were strained and therefore, he was not able to get visa to visit India for recording his evidence. The learned trial Court granted adjournment only for two weeks vide order dated 09.10.2023 without considering the ongoing diplomatic standoff between Indian and Canadian governments and the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to travel to India. In spite of aforesaid unavoidable circumstances, the trial Court directed the prosecution to conclude evidence on 25.10.2023 either through video conferencing of the petitioner or in the court, as last opportunity. On 25.10.2023, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution by order and posted the case for 02.11.2023 for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, the case is taken up for final disposal.
4. In Part H, Volume V, Chapter 1-H of the High Court Rules and Orders Model Rules on Video Conferencing were inserted in terms of the Rules framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The terms ‘Coordinator’, ‘Court Point’, ‘Court User’ and ‘Designated Video Conferencing Software’ have been defined under Rule 2 of the said Rules. Sub rule (viii) of Rule 2 defines ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ which include a pandemic, natural calamities, circumstances implicating law and order and matters relating to the safety of the accused and witnesses. The general principles governing video conferencing have been provided under Rule 3 and what kind of apparatus or devices can be used for conducting proceedings by video conferencing at Court Point and at the Remote Point, as has been provided under Rule 4. The provision for a Coordinator has been made both at the Court Point and the Remote Point from where the required person is to be examined or heard. The relevant Rules are reproduced as under:-
“5. Preparatory Arrangements
5.1 There shall be a Coordinator both at the Court Point and at the Remo
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 2 RCR(Cri) 770
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
The court affirmed that video conferencing for witness testimony must comply with both High Court rules and mutual legal assistance guidelines, ensuring the witness's identity is verified.
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 statement of an overseas witness can be recorded through video conferencing, as per the guidelines laid down by the court for the conduct of court proceedings between courts and remote sites.
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 main legal point established is the applicability of Video Conferencing Rules to civil proceedings and the requirement for a Coordinator at the remote point for examining a witness through video ....
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....
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.