ALEX C. JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2016 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. During trial, a petition was filed seeking permission for the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to conduct cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. Permission was sought citing health reasons and the counsel's inability to travel up to Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Sessions Judge having rejected the petition, this Crl.M.C is filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ('the Rules' for short) is intended to enable, among other things, cross-examination through video conferencing also. In support of the argument, attention is drawn to the definitions of the words 'Advocate', 'Court Point', 'Court User,' 'Remote Point', 'Remote User' and 'Required Person' in Rule 2, the Principles laid down in Rule 3, the procedure for Examination of Persons contained in Rule 8 as well as Rule 10, intended to ensure seamless electronic video linkage. Relying on the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B.Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], it is contended that courts should accept and adopt the changes brought about with the progress in technology.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that examination of the two witnesses, for the cross-examination of whom permission was sought, is over. It is further submitted that, if at all permission to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing is granted, it should be ensured that a responsible lawyer, capable of aiding the court and answering queries, is physically present during the cross-examination.