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.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in case titled as 'Central Bureau of Investigation v. Gautam Cheema and others' in FIR No.RCCHG0512020S0001 dated 29.04.2020 under Section 120B read with Section 452, 323, 365, 342, 225, 186, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') registered at Police Station CBI/SCB/Chandigarh, on the ground that the evidence of private respondent-Kricpy Khera was recorded as PW-42, before learned CBI, Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali), without following the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'), the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the applicable Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), and the objections raised by the petitioner qua the same were dismissed. The petitioner is further seeking directions for setting aside of the evidence recorded of the private respondent through the Video Conferencing (hereinafter referred to as 'VC').

Submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:-

2 (i). That the petitioner was one of the accused in case titled as "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Gautam Cheema and others" in the FIR in question, registered at Police Station CBI/SCB/Chandigarh.

2 (ii). That the private respondent, a witness in the case, is a "Wanted Person", with Look Out Circulars issued against her, and having been declared a proclaimed person in 19 cases with another 42 cases pending against her. Despite these criminal antecedents and pending cases against her, the private respondent managed to evade authorities and flee to Canada without permission from any competent Court.

2 (iii). That the learned CBI Court issued summons to the private respondent for her examination, but she could not be served as she was residing abroad. However, the prosecution presented a screen shot of WhatsApp chat allegedly sent by the private respondent, expressing her readiness to appear through Video Call. The learned CBI Court, vide order dated 04.09.2023, granted permission to the prosecution to examine the private respondent through 'Virtual Mode' as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) outlined by the High Court for witnesses residing abroad. In support, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1. Further, the learned CBI Court, vide order dated 09.11.2023, issued directions to the prosecution to send a request letter to the Canadian Authorities for making arrangements to record the statement of the private respondent. In support, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-2. Pursuant to the orders of the CBI Court, the private respondent appeared on 15.02.2024 as PW-42, and got her deposition recorded via VC.

2 (iv). That the testimony of the private respondent was, however, recorded in violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the High Court Video Conferencing Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and Orders.

2 (v). That while drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 5.1, it has been argued that a Coordinator, has to be present both at the Court and the Remote Point, during examination of a witness. While the requirement for a Remote Point Coordinator may arise in any of the many situations delineated under Rule 5.3, the word "shall" used thereafter indicates that only individuals specified in corresponding situations can act as Remote Point Coordinators. Specifically, if evidence of a witness is to be recorded overseas, as in the present case, Rule 5.3.1 mandates that the Remote Point Coordinator must be an official of the Indian Embassy/High Commission/Consulate.

2 (vi). That the Rules explicitly mandate an official of the Indian Embassy/High Commiss