Source: https://mynation.net/docs/284-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:19:55+00:00

Document:
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.01.2011 passed in I.A.No.3040 of 2010 in FCOP No.569 of 2004 on the file of Principal Family Court at Chennai.
The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Family Judge at Chennai dated 06.01.2011 made in I.A.No.3040 of 2010 in FCOP No.569 of 2004.
2. The respondent in this revision, who is the wife of the petitioner has filed the said O.P for dissolution of marriage that took place between them on 17.04.2002. In the said O.P, the petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.3040 of 2010 seeking permission to lead the evidence through Video Conferencing in the O.P as well as in the Interlocutory Applications. The said application was dismissed by the Court referred to above and the present revision is directed against the said order.
He is a permanent resident in U.S.A and he is unable to come and lead evidence in person in view of his pre-occupation in his career. He is not able to conduct the trial personally because he is unable to get leave from his employer. The terms and conditions of his work are very severe because of the recession prevalent in the U.S.A. Though, he was at Chennai, in view of the various proceedings by the respondent herein, he was unable to get on with the matter. For effective adjudication of the matter, he has to be permitted to lead evidence through video conferencing.
4. The said application was opposed by the respondent herein. It is stated that in order to effectively cross-examine the petitioner, his personal appearance is necessary. She may have to mark certain documents through him and the same cannot be done through video conferencing.
5. The learned Judge of the Principal Family Court at Chennai considering the rival submissions, dismissed the application on the ground that number of documents are to be marked in the O.P on the side of the respondent herein and that parties have to be examined in detail with reference to the documents. The presence of the parties in court during enquiry in the main O.P will enable this Court to record evidence without any difficulty.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that evidence can be recorded through video conferencing. The petitioner is employed in U.S.A and it would be difficult for him to get leave therein and hence he is unable to appear in person before the Family Court. Therefore, he has to necessarily file an application to lead evidence through video conferencing. In support of the case, she relied on the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 601, State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has filed number of documents and unless otherwise the petitioner appears before the Court to lead evidence and available for cross examination, an effective cross examination cannot be carried out. Through video conferencing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner cannot be cross-examined.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
“273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.- Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.” 10.3. While considering the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is permissible. So long as the accused and/or his pleader is present when the evidence is recorded in the said way, it has to be presumed that the evidence is being recorded “in the presence” of the accused and would fully meet the requirements of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 20, 25 and 26 of the judgment referred to above that was relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is usefully extracted here under: “20. Recording of evidence by video-conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded courtroom. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to playback would enable better observation of demeanor. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross-examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of playback would give an added advantage whilst cross-examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing. Thus no prejudice, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the accused. Of course, as set out hereinafter, evidence by video-conferencing has to be on some conditions.
25. It was then submitted that there would be practical difficulties in recording evidence by video-conferencing. It was submitted that there is a time difference between India and USA. It was submitted that a question would arise as to how and who would administer the oath to Dr Greenberg. It was submitted that there could be a video image/audio interruptions/ distortions which might make the transmission inaudible/indecipherable. It was submitted that there would be no way of ensuring that the witness is not being coached/tutored/prompted whilst evidence was being recorded. It is submitted that the witness sitting in USA would not be subject to any control of the court in India. It is submitted that the witness may commit perjury with impunity and also insult the court without fear of punishment since he is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. It is submitted that the witness may not remain present and may also refuse to answer questions. It is submitted that commercial studios place restrictions on the number of people who can remain present and may restrict the volume of papers that may be brought into the studio. It was submitted that it would be difficult to place textbooks and other materials to the witness for the purpose of cross-examining him. Lastly, it was submitted that the cost of video-conferencing, if at all permitted, must be borne by the State.
12.2. Emphasizing further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that effect of the said provision has to be given in toto.
12.3. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 355, A.T.Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment is usefully extracted here under: “21. In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as adumbrated in Heydon’s case (3 Co. Rep. 7a, 76 ER 637) shall apply. Such an amendment was made by the Parliament consciously and, thus, full effect thereto must be given.
(4) the true reason of the remedy.
12.4. The question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the plaintiff can file an affidavit purporting to be his examination in chief. The background of the case is that an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff purporting to be his examination in chief to be taken on evidence in the suit. An objection was raised by the defendant. However, the said objection was turned down. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court also concurred with the view of the Trial Court. The Hon’ble High Court has opined that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if the plaintiff files an affidavit purporting to be his examination in chief, since he would get an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff and plaintiff’s witnesses. When the matter came before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court also concurred with the view of the High Court and dismissed the Civil Appeal. The facts of the case is entirely on different footing.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decision reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1252, State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the direction contained in a decision cannot be held to be declaration of law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. The decision thus, does not constitute binding precedent. By placing emphasis on the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the decision made in (2003) 4 SCC 601, State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai is not binding precedent and hence, it cannot be said that in all cases, the evidence has to be recorded through video-conferencing.
14. As contended rightly by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 601, State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai, the Hon’ble Apex Court has not held that in all cases evidence has to be recorded through video-conferencing. In the case on hand, assurances has been given on the side of the respondent, by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that if the petitioner appears before the Family court to give evidence, he will not be unnecessarily harassed and he will not be made to wait endlessly. It is assured that without any much adjournments, he will be cross-examined on the side of the respondent.
15. While considering the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, if he appears before the Family Court, he will have to be cross-examined without dragging him endlessly and making him to stay for weeks together or months together. That apart, the evidence, if recorded in the open Court, the respondent will be in a better position to effectively cross-examine him on the very number of documents filed on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner cannot say that he will not attend the Court at all to lead evidence.
16. Summing up the entire discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the Court below has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order.
17. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, no orders as to costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
In fine