Trial Courts Can Grant Permission To Conduct Cross-Examination Through Video Conferencing If Valid Reasons Are Shown: Kerala HC
Justice V.G. Arun, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that Trial Courts can grant permission to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing if valid reasons are stated for seeking such permission.
The Court quashed the Order of the Special CBI Court which rejected the Petition seeking permission for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses via video conferencing. The Bench noted that since Rule 10 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 [Rules] enabled Advocates to address arguments from a Remote Point without the presence of the co-ordinator, conduct of cross-examination can also be permitted.
A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed, “Grant of such permission will be in the interest of justice and would ensure expeditious disposal of cases, by avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say, permission to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing need not be granted as a right. On the other hand, if valid reasons are stated for seeking such permission, absence of a specific provision in the Rules should not be a fetter.”
Advocate S. Rajeev represented the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor Sreelal N. Warrier appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner, an accused before the CBI Court, sought permission for his Counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses via video conferencing due to health issues and inability to travel. This Application was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the Rules provided that an Advocate who intends to examine a witness can be permitted to be virtually present in the Court room by remote communication using technology.
“Yet another aspect of importance is that, while Rule 5 mandates the presence of co-ordinators at the Remote Point, when a witness or person accused of an offence is examined, Rule 10(1) makes it clear that presence of a coordinator shall not be necessary at the Remote Point where arguments are addressed by the Advocate or required person. There is no provision in the Rules enabling examination of witnesses by a counsel sitting at a Remote Point. Moreover, as per Rule 6(1), only parties to the proceedings or witnesses can move application seeking conduct of the proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage,” the Court remarked
The Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B.Desai , wherein it was held that “video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Being so, when a witness present in court is examined by video conferencing, it amounts to recording of evidence in the 'presence' of the accused, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 273 of Cr.P.C (Section 308 of BNSS).”
Consequently, the Court held, “In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. If permission is sought for crossexamination of the remaining prosecution witnesses through video conferencing, the trial court shall decide the petition, taking guidance from the observations and findings in this order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Alex C Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:96492)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates S.Rajeev, V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Sarath K.P. And K.S.Kiran Krishnan
Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Sreelal N.Warrier