ORDER : N.K. Balakrishnan, J. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 137/2009 pending before the JFCM, Chalakkudi. Offences alleged against them are under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is stated that the complaint given by the de facto complainant was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioners alleging commission of offences mentioned above. Complainant is the sister of the 2nd accused. 2. The case was posted for examination of the de facto complainant. A petition was then filed by her husband to permit the examination of the Complainant by means of Tele Video-Conference. It was stated that the complainant is in New York and she is not in a position to come to Chalakkudy for giving evidence because of health problem and also because of mental tension. In the affidavit filed by her husband it is stated that the complainant has no friends or relatives at Chalakkudy and she apprehends that she will be physically dealt with by the accused and their men. The other ground stated in the affidavit is that if the complainant is to come to Chalakkudy, she has to leave her minor children at New York. 3. Stating those circumstances, request was made to get her examined by Video-Conference. The application was opposed by the respondents who are the petitioners herein. 4. After hearing both sides the learned Magistrate allowed the petition. That order is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Magistrate has given directions as to how it should be worked out and the precautions to be taken out in the matter. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that serious prejudice will be caused to them if examination is done by Video-Conferencing. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision relied upon by the learned Magistrate is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is further argued that if Video-Conferencing is allowed the rights of the accused to have a fair trial will be denied. 7. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision relied upon by the learned Magistrate is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is further argued that if Video-Conferencing is allowed the rights of the accused to have a fair trial will be denied. 7. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai and Another 2003 (4) SCC 601 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "It was submitted that video-conferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to a procedure involving "virtual reality". Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video-conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel hear or imagine what does not really exist. In virtual reality, one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of the ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one's sofa etc. Video-Conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example, today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches one can watch the game live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in his sight/presence and he/she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in the presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be held that the match is being played in his presence: Both, the person sitting in the stadium and the person, in the drawing room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video-Conferencing is an advancement, in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching, one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In videoconferencing both parties are in the presence of each other. The submissions of the respondents' counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the "presence" of the person observing. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law." 8. It was argued that unless the witness is examined in Court, the Presiding Officer will not be in a position to watch the demeanour of the witness and to assess his evidence correctly and so it will cause serious prejudice to the accused. But that plea was rejected and it was held by the Apex Court that the accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witnesses were actually sitting before them and 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 Court room. It was also observed that they can observe his or her demeanour and in fact the facility to playback would enable better observation of demeanour. 9. It was ultimately held that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the accused. It was also observed that they can observe his or her demeanour and in fact the facility to playback would enable better observation of demeanour. 9. It was ultimately held that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the accused. Sub-section 3 of Section 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has also been referred to here which says that when attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued if the witness is in a country or place outside India and arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for taking the evidence of witnesses in relation to criminal matters, the commission shall be issued in such form, directed to such Court or officer, and sent to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification prescribed in this behalf. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that where the attendance of such witness cannot be procured with an amount of delay expense or inconvenience which under circumstance of the case would be unreasonable, the Court may dispense with such attendance and issue Commission for examination of the witnesses. It is further argued that procuring the attendance of the complainant from New York would generally involve delay, expense and inconvenience. It is further argued that it was not specifically stated as to what would be the prejudice that would be caused to the accused persons because of examination of the complainant by means of Video-Conferencing. 10. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition requiring her examination by video-conferencing was not filed by the complainant herself. The complainant is the sister of the second accused. It is further submitted that the facts dealt with in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be distinguished on facts since in that case Dr. Greenberg (who belongs to USA) was to be examined. Though he expressed his willingness to give evidence, he refused to come to India for that purpose. It was observed that Dr. Greenberg cannot be compelled to come to India to give evidence and so the better course was to record his evidence by Video-Conferencing. Greenberg (who belongs to USA) was to be examined. Though he expressed his willingness to give evidence, he refused to come to India for that purpose. It was observed that Dr. Greenberg cannot be compelled to come to India to give evidence and so the better course was to record his evidence by Video-Conferencing. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that if the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society then it will stifle the growth of the society and would choke its progress and if the Society is vigorous, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel law must therefore, constantly deal on the move adapting itself to the fast changing society and not to lag behind. 11. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 3 and Order 18 Rule 4(3) of CPC which provide for recording evidence either in Writing or mechanically in the presence of a Judge. It is submitted that video link is a mechanical process where the parties present on the screen and there is a mechanical devisor for recording the evidence. Therefore, there can be no impediment to record the evidence in the audio video link. In support of that the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Another v. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd., 2003 KHC 3670 : AIR 2003 Karnataka 148. It Kunal Saha v. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, 2011 (13) SCC 98 wherein it was held that if any foreign experts are to be examined, it shall be done only through video-conferencing and at the cost of the party who wants to get it done. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid case was also concerning examination of two experts and not a case where the complainant herself/himself was to be examined. According to the learned counsel, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to earlier are applicable only when the witnesses are examined and not when the complainant herself is staying in a foreign country and abstains from attending the Court. According to the learned counsel, the complainant by sitting in New York wanted to cause harassment to the accused. According to the learned counsel, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to earlier are applicable only when the witnesses are examined and not when the complainant herself is staying in a foreign country and abstains from attending the Court. According to the learned counsel, the complainant by sitting in New York wanted to cause harassment to the accused. It is further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that if only she comes to the Court and enters the witness box, the truth can be elicited by cross-examination. The view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi, 2005 KHC 5263 : AIR 2005 Calcutta 11 is also in tune with the observations made by the Karnataka High Court reported in Twentieth Century Fox Film corporation's Case (supra). 12. Relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi, 2005 KHC 5263 : AIR 2005 Calcutta 11 it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that essential requirement of advanced technology and its application is to make things easier and flexible and that the Court has to give reasonable and appropriate facility to the people. It is further argued that electronic video-conferencing is not only cheaper but also facilitates the Court to avoid delay in delivering justice. A practical outlook is to be taken by the Court and in such circumstances Video-Conferencing is to be allowed, the respondent contends. 13. Relying on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 KHC 581 : 2003 (4) SCC 601 : 2003 (2) KLT SN 45 : AIR 2003 SC 2053 : JT 2003 (3) SC 382 : 2003 CriLJ 2033 & Sakshi v. Union of India, 2004 (5) SCC 518 it was held by the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, 2005 (3) SCC 284 that the requirement of the Code that the accused should be present at the trial could be met by directing the trial by videoconferencing facility. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, that was one of the rare cases wherein a frequent visit from the place of detention to the Court of trial in Bihar was found impracticable and also thought that it would prejudice the security of both the parties, besides being a heavy burden on the State exchequer. It was in that background the CBI has submitted that the prisons at Chennai, Palayamkottai Central Jail, Vellore Central Jail, Coimbatore Central Jail all in the State of Tamil Nadu and Mysore Central Jail in the State of Karnataka have video-conferencing facilities, and therefore, the respondents can be transferred to any one of those Jails. The present case has to be distinguished on facts since it is a case which originated based on a complaint filed by the person who is now sought to be examined by video-conferencing. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing the complaint and getting it investigated by the police she cannot sit in New York and avoid coming to the Court and face the trial before Court since serious prejudice will be caused to the accused if she is not examined in Court. But as held by the Supreme Court in Praful B. Desai's case (supra) no prejudice will be caused to the accused if she is examined availing videoconferencing facility. 14. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that such a petition happened to be filed by the husband on behalf of his wife since summons was received by the complainant/witness. On receipt of summons, such a petition has been filed only in obedience to the direction of the Court that she should be made available for her examination. Therefore, the contention that as the petition is filed by the husband of the witness and not by the witness herself and hence the petition should not have been entertained by the learned Magistrate is also bereft of any merit. 15. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it was stated in the affidavit filed by the husband that the witness/complainant is having some health problem. No document has been produced to substantiate the same. 15. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it was stated in the affidavit filed by the husband that the witness/complainant is having some health problem. No document has been produced to substantiate the same. It is further contended that the averment in the affidavit that it is unsafe for her to be in Chalakudy for her examination as she apprehends danger" at the hands of the accused or their men is only a story invented by the husband of the witness who swore such affidavit. It is true that merely by saying that the party apprehends danger at the hands of the accused, application for examination by video-conferencing cannot be allowed as a matter of course. But here, admittedly, the complainant/witness is in New York. Her minor children are also there. She cannot leave the children there and come here. It is true that the application was not filed by the complainant/witness herself. But simply because the affidavit and the petition have been filed on her behalf by her husband it cannot be said that the grounds set out for conducting examination by Video-Conferencing facility should be denied. Besides, the attendance of the complainant/witness inconvenience. The contention that serious prejudice will be caused to the accused if examination is allowed by video-conferencing facility is allowed, cannot be accepted and hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Crl. MC is hence dismissed.