In a groundbreaking case before the Delhi High Court, the Court has ruled on the matter of exemption from physical presence in Digital NI Act Courts. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Dubai, sought exemption citing advancements in technology and guidelines for Digital NI Act Courts. This case highlights the evolving landscape of legal proceedings and the increasing role of technology in facilitating efficient and convenient court processes.
Arguments
- The petitioner, a permanent resident of Dubai, seeks exemption from personal attendance in Complaint Cases filed against him in Delhi
- Cites advancements in technology and guidelines for Digital NI Act Courts as reasons for exemption from physical presence
- Mentions previous court cases where similar requests have been granted
- Highlights that the respondent has not raised any specific difficulties in conducting cross-examination via virtual mode
- Points out that the petitioner’s physical presence is not mandatory according to the Guidelines and technology can facilitate virtual cross-examination
- Emphasizes the convenience and feasibility of conducting proceedings through virtual mode
- Argues against the need for the petitioner to travel to India for the purpose of cross-examination
Analysis
- The Covid-19 pandemic has pushed for digitalization and utilization of technology in Court hearings.
- Detailed procedures for recording evidence through video conferencing have been established by the Court.
- Virtual presence of the complainant is deemed adequate for compliance with legal requirements.
- The Court rules and guidelines promote the use of technology for efficient court proceedings.
- Physical presence may not be necessary if virtual presence suffices and parties agree.
- Consent given by the parties for virtual hearings should be respected even after pandemic restrictions are lifted.
- The Court has set up Digital NI Act Courts for cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.
- Recommendations have been made to consider conducting certain cases online without physical presence.
- The complainant is represented by counsel in the Trial Court, ensuring legal representation.
- Technology should be fully utilized in court proceedings to streamline processes and reduce physical presence requirements.
- In Abhishek Verma case, the court relaxed Video Conferencing Rules for a case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Reference was made to M/s Meters and Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta case highlighting the civil nature of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
- Rule 18 of the ‘High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021’ empowers the court to relax or dispense with specific rules causing undue hardship or injustice.
- Rule 18 acts as a safeguard against adverse consequences of inflexible rule application.
- In the present case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the court again invoked Rule 18 to maintain consent for virtual recording of evidence despite the accused wanting to withdraw consent.
- Consent of the respondent should not be permitted to be withdrawn once given for evidence to be recorded in a virtual mode.
- The Trial Court was wrong in allowing the respondent to withdraw their consent in this case.
Decision
- The petitions have been disposed of with the set aside of the previous decisions.
- Pending applications have also been disposed of.
- The examination of the petitioner/complainant will now be conducted through video conferencing (VC) as per the Guidelines issued by the Court.
- If the Trial Court finds it necessary for the physical presence of the petitioner/complainant during cross-examination, it has the freedom to direct so.
Case Title: AMIT CHOUDHRY Vs. KAVANDEEP SINGH SAMPURAN (2024:DHC:3690)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-2354/2022
