ATUL JAIN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 5th May, 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge disposing of an application dated 4th September, 2015 filed by CBI seeking permission to examine some foreign based witnesses through video conferencing, the petitioners prefer the present petitions.

(2.) In the application the CBI prayed that statements of three witnesses, that is, Ms. JH, her father Mr. RJH and Mr. KJP (names concealed to ensure that the identity of the victims is not revealed) be permitted to be examined through video conferencing. According to the CBI, Ms. JH was one of the two victims, Mr. RJH, her father whereas the third witness Mr. KJP was the husband of the other victim as well as the complainant of the case. All these witnesses were Australian citizens however, Ms. JH was presently residing at Nairobi, Kenya. Thus the two witnesses required to be examined were at Australia and the third at Nairobi, Kenya.

(3.) The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order noted that a perusal of the record revealed that the Court had already issued process to the three witnesses on several occasions and summons were sent through concerned Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India along with the written consent sent by the CBI to incur all expenses of summoning and stay of the above witnesses in India, in connection with their examination in this case however, the three witnesses have not given their consent to come and depose in India. Thus relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2003 (4) SCC 601 State of Mahrashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai the learned Special Judge allowed the application.