In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has issued a judgment regarding the requirements for virtual cross-examination in court cases. The case involves a resident of Dubai seeking to have their cross-examination conducted through virtual mode, highlighting the advancements in technology and the necessity of physical presence in legal proceedings. The respondent’s counsel argues for in-person appearance as per the general rule, while the petitioner’s counsel references relevant court judgments in support of virtual cross-examination. Let’s delve into the complexities of this case and the implications for court procedures.
Arguments
- The petitioner, a resident of Dubai, seeks to have his cross-examination conducted through virtual mode.
- Citing advancements in technology and guidelines for Digital NI Act Courts in Delhi, the petitioner argues that there is no necessity for his physical presence in India.
- Previous court orders have allowed similar requests for virtual cross-examination, indicating a trend towards utilizing technology for legal proceedings.
- The petitioner asserts that the respondent has not presented any valid reason for insisting on his physical presence for cross-examination.
- The petitioner’s counsel references relevant court judgments to support their argument for virtual cross-examination.
- In contrast, the respondent’s counsel argues that the complainant should appear in person as per the general rule under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., and accuses the petitioner of filing complaints with malicious intent.
- The respondent’s counsel argues that the petitioner will not face any inconvenience in the manner proposed.
- It is pointed out that the complainant is engaging in extravagant litigation, having not appeared in court since 2018.
- The respondent needs to present numerous documents to confront the petitioner effectively.
- Cross-examination of the petitioner is expected to be completed in 2/3 appearances and can be scheduled at the petitioner’s convenience.
Analysis
- The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a shift towards digitalization in court proceedings.
- The use of modern technology, including video conferencing, has been recommended to reduce overcrowding and promote paperless courts.
- The Court has set guidelines for recording evidence through video conferencing, emphasizing its importance.
- The High Court of Delhi has formulated rules for video conferencing in courts, specifying the procedure for evidence recording.
- Virtual presence of the complainant fulfills the requirements of compliance with Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
- The insistence on physical presence for the sake of ego satisfaction is not justifiable.
- Withdrawal of consent for video testimony based on earlier agreement is not warranted solely due to pandemic restrictions being lifted.
- Digital NI Act Courts have been established for cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.
- Recommendations have been made to consider conducting certain types of cases entirely online without physical presence.
- The complainant is represented by counsel in the Trial Court, highlighting the availability of legal representation.
- The significance of utilizing digital resources fully for court hearings is emphasized.
- Rule 18 of the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021 grants the court the discretion to relax or dispense with specific rules if strict application may cause undue hardship or injustice.
- Rule 18 acts as a safeguard against adverse consequences arising from inflexible rule application.
- Rule 5.3.11 of the Video Conferencing Rules requires consent from the accused before witness examination via video conference.
- The court, under Rule 18, has the power to relax the requirements of any rule to ensure a just and equitable case resolution.
- The court in the case of Vinod Kumar did not allow the accused to withdraw their consent for recording evidence via virtual mode, exercising its power under Rule 18.
- The procedure outlined for recording evidence in a virtual mode must be followed.
- Consent once given by the respondent cannot be withdrawn.
- The Trial Court erred in allowing the withdrawal of consent by the respondent.
Decision
- The petitions have been disposed of as per the above terms.
- Pending applications have also been disposed of.
- Further examination of the petitioner/complainant is directed to be conducted through video conferencing (VC) following the Court’s Guidelines.
- If the Trial Court deems it necessary for cogent reasons, the physical presence of the petitioner/complainant can be directed during cross-examination upon passing of suitable direction.
Case Title: AMIT CHOUDHARY Vs. KAVANDEEP SINGH SAMPURAN & ANR. (2024:DHC:3690)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-2356/2022
