The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized the importance of trial courts utilizing video conferencing (VC) to record the testimony of prosecution witnesses who are located beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

Justice Vikram D Chauhan has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that necessary measures are taken for the recording of evidence from such witnesses via video conferencing (VC).

The court emphasized the need for a coordinated effort among the state authorities, police, and Director of Prosecution to minimize the movement of government officers between districts for the purpose of recording evidence.

The High Court stated that the infrastructure for implementing the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 has been set up using funds from the State exchequer. This infrastructure is intended to benefit prosecution witnesses and private parties involved in litigation who reside outside the court's jurisdiction.

However, the High Court clarified that in the specific circumstances of each case, the concerned court has the authority to require the personal presence of witnesses before the court if deemed necessary.

The High Court was addressing a case where requests were made for directions to a Ghaziabad court to conduct evidence recording through video conferencing (VC). Previously, the High Court had expressed serious concern over the matter upon learning that there was no VC facility available in the Magistrate's courtroom in Ghaziabad.

The Court had issued a warning of potential consequences for judicial officers who failed to facilitate the use of video conferencing despite the infrastructure being available. However, the District Judge of Ghaziabad informed the Court on April 9 that the video conferencing facility was indeed available in the courtroom. Furthermore, instructions had been given to the judicial officers to ensure the effective implementation of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020.

The District Judge also pointed out that the prosecution had not been requesting to lead evidence through video conferencing. Upon reviewing a similar report from the Central Project Coordinator regarding the availability of infrastructure in Ghaziabad and other courts across Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that smaller districts had managed to obtain more evidence through video conferencing than the District Court of Ghaziabad.

In light of the District Judge's statement indicating that the prosecution had not been requesting evidence recording via video conferencing, the State assured the Court of its readiness to cooperate in this matter. Consequently, the Court proceeded to issue directives to the Director General of Police (DGP) and district police chiefs to actively utilize the video conferencing infrastructure for evidence recording purposes.

Advocate Vijit Saxena represented the applicant.

Advocate Ramesh Kumar Pandey represented the Opposite Party.

Senior Advocate Ashok Mehta represented the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Title : Smt Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai vs State Of UP