The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, passed on an application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the Addl. senior civil judge and JMFC. The Court observed that if PW5 is cross-examined through virtual mode, it does not affect the rights of the accused.
Brief Facts:
On 27.06.2017 at about 01:15 p.m., PW5 - the Presiding Officer i.e., Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura was giving dictation to her Stenographer. At that time, the accused entered her Chamber, took a quarrel with her with respect to not signing of GIS bill, abused her, insisted to sign on GIS bill, made criminal intimidation, while discharging public duty. On the basis of a complaint, the Police registered a case, investigated the matter, and filed a charge sheet. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and framed the charge against the accused. At this juncture, the accused filed an appeal before the trial Court for recall of PW5. However, the trial Court allowed the application in part and recalled PW5 to tender for cross-examination through video conferencing. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, praying to recall PW5 for further cross-examination and also prayed to recall PW5 for cross-examination before Court in person, but while allowing the application, the trial Court has not applied liberal approach and recalled PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination in-person before Court and it ordered for recalling PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination through video conferencing only, which is not permissible in law. It is contended that in order to facilitate the petitioner to put forth the fact under lacuna during cross-examination, it is required to keep present PW5 in-person before the Court only.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly recalled PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing facility, which is also a recognized mode, and hence no grounds are made out to allow the petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the chief examination of PW5 was completed and at the stage of cross-examination of PW5, the accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination in-person before the Court, but the trial Court rejected the same, on the ground that PW5 being a Judicial Officer working in Bangalore City, it is not possible for the Officer to travel all the way from Bangalore to Vijayapura.
The Court observed that recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible. The trial Court in order to save the Court time as well as PW5, adopted a new scientific method, to mitigate the workload of Courts. Further, if PW5 is cross-examined through virtual mode, it does not affect the rights of the accused.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner.
Case Title: Mahadev vs The State of Karnataka
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200953/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Naik
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Gururaj V. Hasilkar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
