Evidence of witnesses situated outside court’s jurisdiction must be recorded via VC: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently stressed that the trial courts must use video conferencing (VC) mode to record evidence of prosecution witnesses who are outside such court's jurisdiction [Smt Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai vs State Of UP]. .Justice Vikram D Chauhan ordered Uttar Pradesh’s Director General of Police (DGP) to take necessary steps for recording of evidence of such witnesses via VC. “The Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police shall ensure that applications are filed before the court concerned for recording of evidence through video conferencing in respect of the witnesses/government servants who are posted outside the district where the cases are going on. The Director of Prosecution shall also take necessary steps in this respect,” the Court ordered further..It stressed that a coordinated effort must be made by the State, Police and Director of Prosecution to ensure that there is minimal movement of government officers from one district to another for the purpose of recording evidence. The infrastructure for Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 has been established from the State exchequer and is for the benefit of the prosecution witnesses and private parties who are parties to the litigation and who are residing outside the jurisdiction of the court, the High Court said..It, however, also clarified that the court concerned, in the facts and circumstances of each case, can direct personal presence of the witnesses before the court, if the same is required. “However, the endeavour of the court concerned should be to get the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are outside the jurisdiction of the court recorded through video conferencing,” it added. The High Court was hearing a matter in which directions had been sought to a Ghaziabad court for recording of evidence through VC. It had earlier taken a strong note of the issue after it was told that there was no facility of VC in the Magistrate's courtroom in Ghaziabad. The Court had warned of action against judicial officers found not allowing use of video conference facility despite availability of infrastructure..However, the District Judge Ghaziabad on April 9 told the Court that VC facility was available in the courtroom and instructions have been issued to the judicial officers for effective implementation of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020.The District Judge also highlighted that the prosecution was not requesting for leading evidence through VC. .After examining a similar report of the Central Project Coordinator on availability of infrastructure in Ghaziabad and all other courts in Uttar Pradesh, the Court noticed that other smaller districts have secured more evidence through VC than the District Court of Ghaziabad. “Ghaziabad is a district in the national capital region and is required to be more proactive in implementation of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020,” Justice Chauhan said.Considering the District Judge’s assertion that prosecution was not requesting recording of evidence via VC, the State assured the Court that it was ready to extend cooperation in this regard..Accordingly, the Court proceeded to issue directions to the DGP and district police chiefs for proactive use of VC infrastructure for recording of evidence through VC.“Let compliance report be filed by the State/Director General of Police and Director of Prosecution in this respect,” the Court said while adjourning the matter to April 18..Advocate Vijit Saxena represented the applicant.Advocate Ramesh Kumar Pandey represented the Opposite Party. Senior Advocate Ashok Mehta represented the State of Uttar Pradesh[Read Order]