Meghalaya High Court
Crl.Petn./49/2024 of MOONSHINE NONGKHLAW Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 16 August 2024
Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 49 of 2024 Date of Order: 16.08.2024 Shri Moonshine Nongkhlaw Vs. State of Meghalaya, Rep. by S/o. A . Kharbangar, the Public Prosecutor / R/o. Nongthymmai Kyrdem village, Special Public Prosecutor. Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
Serial No. 01 Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 49 of 2024
Date of Order: 16.08.2024Shri Moonshine NongkhlawVs.State of Meghalaya, Rep. byS/o. A. Kharbangar,the Public Prosecutor / R/o. Nongthymmai Kyrdem village,Special Public Prosecutor.Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
…. Petitioner.
…. Respondent.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s): Mr. S. Dey, Adv.For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Khan, AAG with Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl, Sr. GA.
ORDER (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Khan learned AAG appearing for the State respondent.
2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated09.08.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-BhoiDistrict, Nongpoh in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 7 of 2021 under Section 3(a)/4/17 of the POCSO Act by which, the defence counsel is directed to be physically present before the Trial Court on 19.08.2024 for conductingcross examination of PW No. 4 and PW 5. It is also ordered therein thatcross examination of the said witnesses would not be allowed via videoconferencing.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at present, asper the prevailing norms, all the proceeding before the courts in all thestates across the country are conducted via hybrid mode except the placeswhere the facility is not available. He submits that the Apex Court is alsoencouraging adoption of hybrid mode of hearing all over the country, butthe Trial Court, in the instant matter, without assigning any reason, haspassed the impugned order depriving the petitioner of the opportunity toconduct the cross examination of PW 4 and PW 5 via video conferencing.According to him, passing of the impugned order amounts to interferencewith the privilege enjoyed by the litigants throughout the country and theorder dated 09.08.2024, as such, requires to be interfered with by thisCourt.
4. The learned AAG does not dispute the fact that most of thehearings before the courts are conducted via hybrid mode and in recenttimes, the adoption of hybrid mode for conducting hearing before thecourts are encouraged.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by theTrial Court does not show the reasons for which the cross examination ofthe aforesaid witnesses is not allowed to be conducted through videoconferencing. It is also not observed anywhere in the said order that thecross examination of the witnesses via video conferencing will not beconducive due to certain reason.
6. Since the order under challenge herein is confined to the questionof availing of benefit of cross examination via video conference, thematter does not fall strictly under the purview of criminal law. Hence, theprovision of Section 362 Cr.PC will not apply. Thus, it is deemedappropriate at this juncture to grant liberty to the petitioner to file anapplication before the Trial Court, seeking permission to conduct thecross examination of PW 4 and PW 5 via video conferencing in case ofany practical difficulty on the part of the counsel for the petitioner toappear physically before the Trial Court on the date fixed. In the event offiling of any such application by the petitioner, the Trial Court shall passa reasoned order by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects ofthe matter. It is, however, provided that no adjournment shall be grantedby the Trial Court on the date fixed for cross examination of the saidwitnesses only except in case of unavoidable circumstances. It is alsoprovided that in the event the Trial Court adjourns the matter for someunavoidable reason, the petitioner shall be made liable to bear the cost.
7. With the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
16.08.2024 “N.Swer, Stenographer, Gr-II”