The Allahabad High Court sought explanation from the District Judge, Ghaziabad after it noted a submission that Judicial Officers are not recording the evidence through Video Conferencing.

The Court expressed concern over the lack of interest of Judicial officers in the implementation of Rules for Video Conferencing in Uttar Pradesh.

The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed, “In the event, courts are not recording evidence where the prosecution witnesses are outside the district, the District Judge, Ghaziabad shall also explain as to why the officers of judiciary of District Ghaziabad are not taking interest in implementation of Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 and why action be not initiated for not following the direction of law.”

Advocate Vijit Saxena appeared for the Applicant.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C was filed by applicant, Smt Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai seeking quashing of order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in case under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and to direct the court below to take evidence through video conference in case pending in the same Court by Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020.

The Court directed the Central Project Co-ordinator (CPC), High Court, Allahabad and District Judge, Ghaziabad to submit a report after the Counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no video conferencing facility in Additional CJM Court as per instruction received.

The Court also directed the AGA to obtain instruction from the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh as it found that video conferencing facilities were not extended to the prosecution witnesses, who were outside the district where the case was being heard.

The Court further directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to explain what steps the Government took in this regard so that the valuable time of prosecution witnesses, who are generally government officials, could be saved.

In the meantime, the Court directed the concerned Courts to grant applications for leading evidence through Video Conferencing and only in case of connectivity issues, that Court ask prosecution witnesses to appear in person.

Cause Title: Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai v. State of U.P.


Adv. Vijit Saxena, Adv. Ramesh Kumar Pandey

Click here to read/download Judgment