Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"Recording of Evidence by Video Conferencing is Permissible": Karnataka High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court at Kalaburagi Bench has upheld the legality of conducting cross-examination through video conferencing. The decision was delivered by THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T. on the 11th of August, 2023.

The case revolved around the petitioner, Mahadev, who sought to quash an order allowing the recall of PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing in a criminal case. The accused was charged with abusing a Judicial Officer over the non-signing of a GIS bill.

In the judgment, the Court observed that "Recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible. A proviso was inserted to Sub-Section (1) to Section 275 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Act 5 of 2009 (Code of Criminal Procedure amendment) Act, 2008." [Para 9]

The Court further referred to the detailed rules and procedures laid down for video conferencing, including the examination of persons and exhibiting or showing documents, and concluded that the trial Court's decision was in accordance with the law.

The High Court held that the trial Court's decision to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing was permissible and did not affect the rights of the accused. The petition was dismissed.

This ruling sets a precedent and emphasizes the legal acceptance of modern technological methods in court proceedings, aligning with the efforts to mitigate the workload of courts and save time. It also highlights the importance of adhering to the established rules and procedures for conducting video conferencing in legal matters.

Date of Decision: 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

MAHADEV vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Latest Legal News