Full Text
Translation output
$-28 to 33 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.3100/2019 and Crl. M.A. 12670/2019
VINOD POPLI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Atul T.N.and Mr.Devendra Verma, Advocates
CRL.M.C.3100/2019 and Crl. M.A. 12670/2019
VINOD POPLI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Atul T.N.and Mr.Devendra Verma, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE& ORS Respondents V Through:Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the
State Mr.Sahil Srivastava,Adv.for R-3
State Mr.Sahil Srivastava,Adv.for R-3
CRL.M.C.3271/2019 and Crl. M.A.13458/2019
Through:Mr.Atul T.N.and Mr.Devendra Verma, Advocates
Through:Mr.Atul T.N.and Mr.Devendra Verma, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE& ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the ; State
' Mr.Sahil Srivastava,Adv.for R-3
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the ; State
' Mr.Sahil Srivastava,Adv.for R-3
CRL.M.C.3272/2019 and Crl. M.A. 13460/2019
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
STATE& ANR Respondents
Through:Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State
Through:Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State
CRL.M.C.3273/2019 and Crl. M.A.13462/2019
CRL.M.C.3100/2019&conn. Page 1 of4
2019:DHC:7478 VESfOD POPLI Petitioner Advocates
2019:DHC:7478 VESfOD POPLI Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
STATE&ORS Respondents State
CRL.M.C.3274/2019 and Crl. M.A. 13464/2019
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
State
CRL.M.C.3275/2019 and Crl. M.A. 13466/2019
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
30.07.2019 The petitioner and the third respondentarefacing prosecution
30.07.2019 The petitioner and the third respondentarefacing prosecution
CRL.M.C.3100/2019&conn. Page2of4 u in complaint cases (CC-611985/2016, CC-619298/2016, CC-
618852/2016,CC-619700/2016,CC-619299/2016, CC-619300/2016) in the court ofthe Metropolitan Magistrate instituted by the second respondent(complainant)each alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 concerning different set of cheques. The case is atthe stage ofcross-examination ofcomplainant who is stationed in United Kingdom. It appears the Metropolitan
Magistrate has made arrangements for the said witness to be cross- examined through video conferencing. The arrangements,as per the submissions of the petitioner, involve a private Notary / Oath
Commissioner at the remote end which, as per the argument ofthe petitioner, is improper,it not being in sync with the decisions ofthis court in Sujoy Mitra vs. State of West Bengal, 2015(16)SCC 615;
InternationalPlannedParenthoodFederation(IPPF)v^. MadhuBala
Nath, 2016 AIR (Del) 71; Eaton Corporation & Anr. Vs. BCH
Electric Limited,2017(165)DRJ405andMilanoImpex Private Ltd. vs. EgleFootwearPvt.Ltd., 2012(188)DLT202. It appears the trial court did not consider such objections though the petitioner claims to have raised submissions to that effect at the time of the impugned order in terms of which such cross-examination by video conferencing has been scheduled for24.09.2019at2.00p.m.
In the given facts and circumstances,since the impugned order does not indicate the opinion of the trial court on the above issue essentially on law and propriety of the procedure of video conferencing, the counselforthe petitionersubmitted thathe may be
CRL.M.C.3100/2019&conn. Page3of4 permitted to withdraw the present petitions and given liberty to approach the concerned court with a fresh application for appropriate directionsto beissued onthe subjectofvideo conferencing in lightof the guidelines provided by the case law.
The petitions and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner will have the liberty as is prayed for by him. Needless to add,the Metropolitan Magistrate will consider the legal objections and suggestions to the propriety ofthe procedure and pass appropriate orders in their light.
Dastiunderthe signatures ofthe Court Master.
K GA A
JULY 30,2019 yg
618852/2016,CC-619700/2016,CC-619299/2016, CC-619300/2016) in the court ofthe Metropolitan Magistrate instituted by the second respondent(complainant)each alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 concerning different set of cheques. The case is atthe stage ofcross-examination ofcomplainant who is stationed in United Kingdom. It appears the Metropolitan
Magistrate has made arrangements for the said witness to be cross- examined through video conferencing. The arrangements,as per the submissions of the petitioner, involve a private Notary / Oath
Commissioner at the remote end which, as per the argument ofthe petitioner, is improper,it not being in sync with the decisions ofthis court in Sujoy Mitra vs. State of West Bengal, 2015(16)SCC 615;
InternationalPlannedParenthoodFederation(IPPF)v^. MadhuBala
Nath, 2016 AIR (Del) 71; Eaton Corporation & Anr. Vs. BCH
Electric Limited,2017(165)DRJ405andMilanoImpex Private Ltd. vs. EgleFootwearPvt.Ltd., 2012(188)DLT202. It appears the trial court did not consider such objections though the petitioner claims to have raised submissions to that effect at the time of the impugned order in terms of which such cross-examination by video conferencing has been scheduled for24.09.2019at2.00p.m.
In the given facts and circumstances,since the impugned order does not indicate the opinion of the trial court on the above issue essentially on law and propriety of the procedure of video conferencing, the counselforthe petitionersubmitted thathe may be
CRL.M.C.3100/2019&conn. Page3of4 permitted to withdraw the present petitions and given liberty to approach the concerned court with a fresh application for appropriate directionsto beissued onthe subjectofvideo conferencing in lightof the guidelines provided by the case law.
The petitions and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner will have the liberty as is prayed for by him. Needless to add,the Metropolitan Magistrate will consider the legal objections and suggestions to the propriety ofthe procedure and pass appropriate orders in their light.
Dastiunderthe signatures ofthe Court Master.
K GA A
JULY 30,2019 yg
CRL.M.C.3100/2019&conn. Page4of4
JUDGMENT