Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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