The main legal point established is the permissibility of cross-examination through video conferencing, supported by the legislative backing provided by the Rules of 2020 and the interpretation of section 273 of the CrPC by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

In these four C482 Applications, the challenge, which has been given is to the order dated 15.03.2023, i.e. an order which has been passed by the learned Trial Court, who is presently ceased with the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by permitting the cross-examination of the witnesses through video conferencing.

2. It is this order, which has been put to challenge on an apprehension that there could be a possibility of tampering of the evidence or misleading the court by putting a false evidence, as per the unfounded apprehension expressed by the applicant in paragraph no.20, that there would be a possibility that the witnesses may be tutored by the opposite side.

3. In fact, in order to answer the theory of apprehension, which has been expressed by the learned counsel for the applicant, it would be necessary to deal with the Rules which have been framed by the High Court of Uttarakhand vide its Letter No.344/XXXVI-A- 1/20-342/2020, dated 26.11.2020, which has been framed by the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 225 to be read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, namely, High Court of Uttarakhand Video Conferencing Rules-2020.

4. As per the said Rules, which have a statutory force, the term “Court” has been defined under sub-section (iv) of Rule 2 of the Rules, which means that the court would includes a physical court or a virtual court or the Tribunal. The definition of “court” as given, therein under the rules would be wide enough to include the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, who is presently ceased with the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to make the Rules of 2020, applicable to govern the proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act, which have been carried by the said court. The relevant definition of the “Court” under the rules of 2020 is extracted hereunder:-

“(iv) "Court" includes a physical court and a virtual Court or tribunal.”

5. In order to meet out the probable apprehension, which has been expressed by the learned counsel for the applicant, as per the pleadings raised in paragraph no.20, of the C482 Application, the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent has referred to that as per the Rules of 2020, as framed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, Rule 9 becomes relevant to be considered in the instant cases, where the Rule 9 has provided, that exhibiting or showing a document to the witnesses or an accused at the remote point would be permissible, subject to the conditions which have been given, therein, particularly as that contained under Rule 9.2. On the simplicitor interpretation of the said Rules, it opens that at the point of cross-examination can be put to a person by transmitting a copy of same to the Court, electronically including the document visualizer. Relevant Rule 9 of rules is extracted hereunder:-

“9. Exhibiting or Showing Documents to Witness or Accused at a Remote Point If in the course of examination of a person at a Remote Point by video conferencing, it is necessary to show a document to the person, the Court may permit the document to be shown in the following manner:

9.1 If the document is at the Court Point, by transmitting a copy or image of the document to the Remote Point electronically, including through a document visualizer; or

9.2 If the document is at the Remote Point, by putting it to the person and transmitting a copy/image of the same to the Court Point electronically including through a document visualizer. The hard copy of the document counter signed by the witness and the Coordinator at the Remote Point shall be dispatched thereafter to the Court Point via authorized courier/registered speed post.”

6. In order to further elucidate his arguments, which has been put forth that if the provision contained under section 273 of the CrPC is taken into consideration, which, in its chapter XXIII, provides the manner in which the ev