Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
CRA No.8493 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8493 of 2024
RAJA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
ERP is not functioning. There is no support from the I.T. Section.
The matter is taken up for hearing.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor has produced VC
Attendance Register from Sub Jail, District Jail, Katni, showing that on
19.03.2024, accused-appellant Raja/Babu Yadav had appeared before the learned
Special Judge, NDPS Act, Katni, namely, Shri Ashutosh Mishra. It is submitted
that a warrant was also received in the Sub Jail for 21.03.2024.
2. Shri Atul Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention
of this Court to the provisions contained in the District Courts of Madhya Pradesh
Video Conferencing and Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2020").
3. Shri Atul Kumar Jain, learned counsel submits that Rules 2(l), 2(m) and
2(o) respectively define "Institutional Remote Point", "Remote Point" and
"Required Person". Thereafter, it is pointed out that Rule 8(3) provides that
"Where the person being examined or accused to be presented is in custody, the
statement or, as the case may be, the testimony may be recorded through video
conferencing. The court shall provide adequate opportunity to the under-trial
prisoner to consult with their counsel before and after the video conferencing."
4. Similarly, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 provides that "Subject to the provisions
for examination of witnesses contained in the Evidence Act, before the
examination of the witness, the documents, if any, sought to be relied upon shall
be transmitted by the applicant to the witness so that the witness acquires
familiarity with the said documents. The applicant will submit an
acknowledgement with the court in this behalf."
5. It is also submitted that Sub-rule (8) of the Rule 8 provides that "The Court
shall obtain the signature of the person being examined on the transcript once the
examination is concluded. The signed transcript will form part of the record of the
judicial proceedings. The signature on the transcript of the person being examined
shall be obtained in either of the following ways."
6. It is, thus, submitted that when as per the learned Special Judge, statements
were recorded on 19.03.2024, then firstly there should have been a mention of the
fact that statements are being recorded through video conferencing. Thereafter,
the learned Special Court should have made a note that in compliance of Sub-rule
(3) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2020, adequate opportunity was granted to the
under-trial prisoner to consult his counsel before and after the video
conferencing.
7. It is also submitted that without mentioning the fact that the transcript of
the statements was being forwarded to the concerned jail for obtaining signatures
of the under-trial, the signatures were obtained on 21.03.2024 and on the same
date, learned Presiding Officer signed the statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
8. It is submitted that prejudice has been caused to the interest of the appellant
as adequate opportunity was not afforded to the under-trial to consult his counsel
before and after the video conferencing and, therefore, due to violation of these
rules, the statements recorded through video conferencing under Section 313,
Cr.P.C. gets vitiated.
9. In view of such factual background, we set aside the impugned judgment
dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Katni in
Special case No. 02/2023 and remand the matter to the concerned Special Court
to record the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., after affording
him an opportunity of consulting his counsel and also ensuring compliance of the
Rules of 2020. If possible, the statements may be recorded in person. Thereafter,
a fresh judgment may be passed in accordance with the merits of the case.
10. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has
remanded the matter only on the technical plea of prejudice taken by the appellant
regarding recording of his previous statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
11. Let this exercise be completed, as far as possible, within 45 days of receipt
of certified copy of this order, which the Registry shall transmit to the concerned
Court by tomorrow i.e. 13.11.2025.
12. The attendance register of the District Jail, Katni, is returned to Shri Manas
Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor.
13. The Registry is requested to communicate a copy of this order to the
concerned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Shri Ashutosh Mishra, wherever he is
posted and if he is in service, informing him that there was material irregularity in
recording of the proceedings and he should be cautious in future.
14. In above terms, the criminal appeal is disposed of. Record of the trial Court
be sent back immediately. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp.
