Judicial endorsement of video conferencing for evidence collection is mandated, emphasizing modern practices should not be obstructed by technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

This is an application for advancing the date of hearing in the main case which is fixed for 15.10.2025.

Notice in the application.

Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/respondents.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Hearing of the main case is preponed and the same is taken on board today itself.

CRM-24977-2025

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Photocopy of order dated 13.06.2025 as Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to conduct cross-examination of witnesses by video conferencing, was dismissed. The Revisional Court, concurring with the findings of the Trial Court, also dismissed the revision petition, thus, giving rise to the present proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the concurrent findings of the Trial and Revisional Courts as being grossly erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law governing recording of evidence through video conferencing.

3. It is submitted that both courts below have gravely erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground of “voluminous documents”, without due regard to the jurisprudential shift in favour of utilizing technology to aid judicial proceedings. It is argued that the mere existence of bulky records cannot, by itself, form a legitimate basis for denying permission to examine witnesses by video conferencing, particularly in light of multiple judicial pronouncements upholding the permissibility and efficacy of such procedure.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners had already led pre-charge evidence and their witnesses had been duly cross- examined by the respondents. However, subsequent to the framing of charges by the learned Trial Court on 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), the respondents moved an application seeking cross-examination of all witnesses afresh – described by learned counsel for the petitioners as a dilatory tactic aimed at stalling the proceedings.

5. It has also been brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioners were compelled to relocate to the United States of America following a brutal and targeted attack upon their son, necessitating steps for his safety and well-being. Due to this compulsion, their physical presence before the Trial Court has been rendered infeasible.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has still further submitted that the courts below failed to take cognizance of relevant and binding precedents wherein both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have upheld the practice of recording evidence by video conferencing under suitable safeguards. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed upon Kulvir Ram @ Mati Versus State of Punjab and another , CRM-M- 49907-2024, decided on 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-11) and Chakravarthy Madasu and another Versus Cardiolab Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd (M/s), 2025(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1454.

7. It has been categorically submitted that the petitioners are willing to disclose their precise location at all times and will abide by any safeguards or directions issued by the court to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

8. On being put to notice, Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opp