Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"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