High Court · 2024

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.02.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHCrl.O.P No.2565 of 2024Mrs.Regina Fatima Marie Saint JacquesPetitionervs.The Inspector of Police,Odiansalai Police Station,Puducherry. RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the III Additional District Judge Puducherry Trail Court complete the PW1 and PW 2 examination of Witnesses (Chief and Cross Examination) through the video conference in SC.NO.21 of 2019 on the III Additional District Judge Puducherry and the dates fixed by the Court permit the petitioner/PW1 and PW2 to appear before the court through the video conference through the embassy (France) and depose the chief and cross examination in the above said SC.No.21 of 2019.For Petitioner: Mr.G.PrabakarFor Respondent: Mr.K.S.Mohandoss Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2ORDERThis criminal original petition has been filed to direct the III Additional District Judge Puducherry Trail Court to complete the examination of witnesses PW1 and PW2 (Chief and Cross Examination) through video conference mode in SC.No.21 of 2019 on the III Additional District Judge Puducherry on the dates fixed by the Court and permit the petitioner/PW1 and PW2 to appear before the court from the embassy (France) and depose the chief and cross examination in the above said SC.No.21 of 2019.2.When the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the III Additional District Court, Pudhucherry, to complete the examination of PW-1 and PW-2 through video conferencing in S.C.No.21 of 2019 and further permit the petitioner to appear before the Court below through video conferencing.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that already 39 witnesses have been examined in this case and the case is now at the stage of examination of investigation officer. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that LW-1 and LW-2 never appeared before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3the Court and therefore, they are yet to be examined in this case.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the investigation has not proceeded in a proper manner and that the trial is being conducted in a hasty manner. Learned counsel further submitted that LW-1 and LW-2 have always expressed their difficulty to come over to Puducherry from France and in spite of the same, the prosecution is proceeding to examine other witnesses and thereby scuttle the fair trial in this case.4. In the considered view of this Court, what has been sought for as relief is different from what has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner before this Court. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation had taken place and the manner in which the trial is proceeding further in this case, the petitioner has to seek for an appropriate remedy. Considering the nature of relief that has been sought for in this petition, this Court will not go into the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. The duty of a Judge is only to adjudicate and not to give opinion as to what type of relief should be sought for and what type of contention should be put forth before the Court.5. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to decide as to whether he is confining his relief to what has been sought for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4in this case or he wants to seek for some other remedy and thereby, he wants to file a fresh petition.Post this case next week.3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will confine his relief in the present case by requesting for the examination of LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing platform. The learned counsel submitted that LW1 is aged about 72 years and she has some health issues and she is residing at France and therefore, she is not in a position to come over to Puducherry. Insofar as the LW2 is concerned, she is the sister of LW1 and she is also residing in France and she is also aged about 67 years. Therefore, the learned counsel requested this Court to issue direction to the Court below to examine LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing platform.4.The case seems to have came up for hearing before the Court below on 23.02.2024. The Court below by mistake has noted that the present criminal original petition was dismissed by this Court and whereas, the petition is very much pending. The Court below has also directed the respondent to produce LW1 and LW2 by 19.03.2024, failing which, other witnesses will be examined. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

55.In the instant case, already 39 witnesses have been examined and the case is almost at the fag end of the trial. LW1 is the defacto complainant and LW2 is the sister of LW1 who is also well appraised of the facts of the case. Without examining these two witnesses, the prosecution will not be able to prove their case. Considering the fact that LW1 and LW2 are residing in France and they are aged ladies who are not able to come over to Puducherry to give their evidence, this court feels that the video conferencing platform can be effectively utilized for the purpose of examining LW1 and LW2. Already, the hybrid video conferencing mode has become the order of the day and all the Courts accros Tamil Nadu have been directed to adopt this mode and in the Union Territory of Puducherry, it has come in to effect from 05.02.2024. Therefore, it will be more appropriate to issue directions to the Court below with regard to the examination of LW1 and LW2.6.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry to make arrangements for the examination of LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing mode. The prosecution as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused are directed to co-operate for examination of the witness through video conferencing. This process shall be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6completed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.7.On the completion of examination of LW1 and LW2, the prosecution shall examine all the other listed witnesses who are yet to be examined and the Court below shall complete the proceedings in SC.No.21 of 2019, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.8.This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above directions. 28.02.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderssrTo1.The III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.2.The Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

73.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. ssrCrl.O.P No.2565 of 202428.02.2024

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.02.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHCrl.O.P No.2565 of 2024Mrs.Regina Fatima Marie Saint JacquesPetitionervs.The Inspector of Police,Odiansalai Police Station,Puducherry. RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the III Additional District Judge Puducherry Trail Court complete the PW1 and PW 2 examination of Witnesses (Chief and Cross Examination) through the video conference in SC.NO.21 of 2019 on the III Additional District Judge Puducherry and the dates fixed by the Court permit the petitioner/PW1 and PW2 to appear before the court through the video conference through the embassy (France) and depose the chief and cross examination in the above said SC.No.21 of 2019.For Petitioner: Mr.G.PrabakarFor Respondent: Mr.K.S.Mohandoss Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2ORDERThis criminal original petition has been filed to direct the III Additional District Judge Puducherry Trail Court to complete the examination of witnesses PW1 and PW2 (Chief and Cross Examination) through video conference mode in SC.No.21 of 2019 on the III Additional District Judge Puducherry on the dates fixed by the Court and permit the petitioner/PW1 and PW2 to appear before the court from the embassy (France) and depose the chief and cross examination in the above said SC.No.21 of 2019.2.When the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the III Additional District Court, Pudhucherry, to complete the examination of PW-1 and PW-2 through video conferencing in S.C.No.21 of 2019 and further permit the petitioner to appear before the Court below through video conferencing.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that already 39 witnesses have been examined in this case and the case is now at the stage of examination of investigation officer. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that LW-1 and LW-2 never appeared before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3the Court and therefore, they are yet to be examined in this case.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the investigation has not proceeded in a proper manner and that the trial is being conducted in a hasty manner. Learned counsel further submitted that LW-1 and LW-2 have always expressed their difficulty to come over to Puducherry from France and in spite of the same, the prosecution is proceeding to examine other witnesses and thereby scuttle the fair trial in this case.4. In the considered view of this Court, what has been sought for as relief is different from what has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner before this Court. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation had taken place and the manner in which the trial is proceeding further in this case, the petitioner has to seek for an appropriate remedy. Considering the nature of relief that has been sought for in this petition, this Court will not go into the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. The duty of a Judge is only to adjudicate and not to give opinion as to what type of relief should be sought for and what type of contention should be put forth before the Court.5. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to decide as to whether he is confining his relief to what has been sought for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4in this case or he wants to seek for some other remedy and thereby, he wants to file a fresh petition.Post this case next week.3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will confine his relief in the present case by requesting for the examination of LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing platform. The learned counsel submitted that LW1 is aged about 72 years and she has some health issues and she is residing at France and therefore, she is not in a position to come over to Puducherry. Insofar as the LW2 is concerned, she is the sister of LW1 and she is also residing in France and she is also aged about 67 years. Therefore, the learned counsel requested this Court to issue direction to the Court below to examine LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing platform.4.The case seems to have came up for hearing before the Court below on 23.02.2024. The Court below by mistake has noted that the present criminal original petition was dismissed by this Court and whereas, the petition is very much pending. The Court below has also directed the respondent to produce LW1 and LW2 by 19.03.2024, failing which, other witnesses will be examined. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

55.In the instant case, already 39 witnesses have been examined and the case is almost at the fag end of the trial. LW1 is the defacto complainant and LW2 is the sister of LW1 who is also well appraised of the facts of the case. Without examining these two witnesses, the prosecution will not be able to prove their case. Considering the fact that LW1 and LW2 are residing in France and they are aged ladies who are not able to come over to Puducherry to give their evidence, this court feels that the video conferencing platform can be effectively utilized for the purpose of examining LW1 and LW2. Already, the hybrid video conferencing mode has become the order of the day and all the Courts accros Tamil Nadu have been directed to adopt this mode and in the Union Territory of Puducherry, it has come in to effect from 05.02.2024. Therefore, it will be more appropriate to issue directions to the Court below with regard to the examination of LW1 and LW2.6.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry to make arrangements for the examination of LW1 and LW2 through video conferencing mode. The prosecution as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused are directed to co-operate for examination of the witness through video conferencing. This process shall be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6completed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.7.On the completion of examination of LW1 and LW2, the prosecution shall examine all the other listed witnesses who are yet to be examined and the Court below shall complete the proceedings in SC.No.21 of 2019, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.8.This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above directions. 28.02.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderssrTo1.The III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.2.The Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

73.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. ssrCrl.O.P No.2565 of 202428.02.2024