The accused's right to a fair trial includes the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, which should be facilitated through the use of video conferencing technology when the complainant is not available in person.

The prayers in the Original Petition are as follows:-

i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of EXHIBIT P4 Order dated 30.03.3024, passed by the learned JFCM-II, Ettumanoor and quash the same by way of issuing appropriate Order, in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue directions to the learned JFCM-II, Ettumanoor to provide reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence in the case by way of effectively cross examining the Respondent/ Complainant and also to adduce Defense Evidence.

iii. Pass such any other Order, Direction or Relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.No.50 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ettumanoor.

He is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

4. On 05.03.2024, the respondent/complainant was examined. As the counsel for the petitioner/accused was absent, he was not subjected to cross-examination on that day.

5. The petitioner/accused then filed CMP.No.315 of 2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant for cross-examination. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the learned Magistrate in not permitting the accused to cross-examine the complainant is against the principles of fair trial.

7. The learned counsel for the party respondent submitted that the complainant is now working in Saudi Arabia and he appeared before the Court on 05.03.2024 and waited till 07.03.2024 for facilitating his cross- examination. It is further submitted that the complainant had to leave India to join his employment on 08.03.2024. It is submitted that the complainant is incapacitated to appear before the Court in the near future.

8. It is discernible from the impugned order that opportunity was given to the counsel appearing for the accused on 05.03.2024 and 07.03.2024 to cross-examine the complainant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the personal inconvenience of the lawyer who appeared for the accused prevented him to cross-examine the complainant which has caused serious prejudice to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the complainant finds any difficulty in appearing before the Court in the near future, a direction be given to the trial Court to invoke the provisions of Rule 8(23) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 for the examination of the complainant who is now settled in a foreign country.

10. Rule 8(23) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, provides that when a Required Person is unable to reach the Court point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity or due to any genuine reason which the Court may decide, or the presence of the Required Person cannot be secured without undue delay or expenses, the Court may authorise the conduct of the proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage from the place where the Required Person is situated. The trial Court shall invoke Rule 8(23) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 for the examination of the complainant.

11. In view of the above direction, the order dated 30.03.2024 in CMP No.315 of 2024 in ST.No.50 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ettumanoor stands set aside.

The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.