##PAGE1##

CRM-M-45513-2023 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

139 CRM-M-45513-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2026

ANITA GUPTA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2023, Annexure P-7, whereby evidence of the

prosecution has been closed by order.

2. Learned counsel prays for one opportunity to get the cross-examination of the complainant-petitioner conducted through video conferencing, as she, aged 57 years, suffers from a serious heart ailment with a functional capacity of 20% and is also undergoing treatment for cancer, for which reference is made to the medical report, Annexure P-5, however vide the impugned order, the prosecution evidence was closed, which was stayed by this

Court, vide order dated 14.09.2023.

3. Heard.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.04.02 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-45513-2023 - 2 - 4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai , (2003) 4 SCC 601 has dealt in extenso with the issue with regard to recording of evidence through video conferencing mode,

relevant paras whereof read thus:

“20. Recording of evidence by video-conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded courtroom. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to playback would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross-examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of playback would give an added advantage whilst cross-examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing. Thus no prejudice, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the accused. Of course, as set out hereinafter, evidence by

video-conferencing has to be on some conditions.

21. Reliance was then placed on Sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code which require that evidence be taken down in writing by the Magistrate himself or by his dictation in open court. It was submitted that video-conferencing would have to take place in the studio of VSNL. It was submitted that this would violate the right of the accused to have the evidence recorded by the Magistrate or under his dictation in open court. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video-conferencing equipment in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the Magistrate or under his dictation in open court. If that is done then the requirements of these sections would be fully met. To this method there is, however, a drawback. As the witness is now in court there may be difficulties if he commits contempt of court or perjures himself and it is immediately noticed that he has perjured himself. Therefore as a matter of prudence, evidence by video-conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are

also punishable.”

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.04.02 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-45513-2023 - 3 - 5. In Vinod Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8287, the i