Dismissed

Pradhuman Bisht v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC5 May 2014C482/130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking video recording of trial proceedings. The Court held that such recording is discretionary under Section 275 Cr.P.C. and not mandatory, noting that proceedings occur in open court.

What did the court decide?

Application for video recording of proceedings and transfer dismissed; trial court order upheld.

Pradhuman Bisht Vs State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.130 of 2014

Pradhuman Bisht

… Applicant

vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents

¶7

Mr. B. S. Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. S. Adhikari, Brief Holder for the State.

¶8

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Accused-applicant moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun on 12.09.2013 for conducting video recording of the proceedings of criminal case no.4769/2011 under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It was prayed by the accused-applicant that since the father of the complainant (respondent no.2 herein) was an influential lawyer practicing in Dehradun civil court, therefore, video recording of the proceedings be conducted. It was, perhaps, his apprehension that the court proceeding in this criminal case will not be conducted properly, in as much as the father of respondent no.2 is a local influential lawyer.

¶10

Such an application was dismissed by the trial court, primarily on the ground that since the proceeding of any case is conducted in open court, therefore, there was no need of video recording. The trial court also said in the impugned order that if the accused-applicant apprehends that justice will not be meted out to him, he may get the criminal case transferred to some other court.

¶11

Aggrieved against the same, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

-2-

¶13

It will be useful to reproduce sub-section (1) of Section 275 Cr.P.C. in this context herein below:

¶14

275. Record in warrant-cases. – (1) In all warrant-cases tried before a Magistrate, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Magistrate himself or by his dictation in open Court or, where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction and superintendence, by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf:

¶15

Provided that evidence of a witness under this subsection may also be recorded by the audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of the offence.”

¶16

Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 275 Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. It says about recording of evidence by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of the offence. The recording of evidence of a witness by audio-video electronic means is discretionary and not mandatory. Moreover, the proviso deals with recording of evidence by audio-video electronic means, and not with video recording and, therefore, learned trial court did not commit any illegality while passing the impugned order, howsoever justified the apprehension or anguish of the accused-applicant might be.

¶17

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is dismissed.

¶18

Dated 05^th May, 2014 Rawat

Pradhuman Bisht v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradhuman Bisht v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khalil Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Smt. Ashu @ Arshi Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Rasid Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Tarsem Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Dharam Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ujjawal Mukhopadhyaya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others