Since the purpose of enactment of Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 itself is to examine the witnesses whose presence could not be secured without undue delay or expenses and for other reasons stated in Rule 8(23), a person who has been employed in Dubai whose presence could not be secured without delay and also without spending travelling and other expenses when allowed to be examined through video linkage, in terms of the rules, in such a case the petitioner has no right to say that cross examination by video linkage is not effective and as good as physical mode and, therefore, such examination should not be permitted. In fact, the examination of the witness either through physical mode or through video linkage, the same makes no difference as far as the right of the accused to cross examine the witness is concerned. However, the intention of the petitioner securing physical presence of the witness for examination may be one with ulterior motive, which I am not inclined to discuss in detail. That apart, it is worthwhile to note that the framers of the Rules even visualised the argument of this nature while implementing the Rules and they vigilantly implemented Rule 8(24) and the said provision provides that subject to the orders of the Court, if any party or his authorised person is desirous of being physically present at the Remote Point at the time of recording of the evidence, it shall be open for such party to make arrangements at his own cost. If so, the dread persuasion of the petitioner could be addressed by resorting to Rule 8(24), subject to the orders of the Court. {Para 10}
11. It is pertinent to note that, if the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same is akin to make the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 redundant. The principles governing interpretation do not permit interpretation of a provision of law or an enactment to make the same as redundant.
12. Epitomizing the discussion, it is held that the learned Special Judge rightly allowed the petition with a view to secure examination of CW1, whose presence could not be secured without undue delay or expenses, through video linkage and with bona fide intention to dispose of a case of the year 2012, pending for the last 11 years, without further delay. Therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity or requires any interference and the order impugned is liable to be confirmed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.MC NO. 1465 OF 2023
GOPAL.C. Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
Dated: 3rd day of March, 2023
Print Page
