Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"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 

Similar News