3 min readNew DelhiFeb 15, 2025 04:59 AM IST
First published on: Feb 15, 2025 at 04:59 AM IST
In what it called a “glaring misuse of the video-conferencing (VC)” facility, a Delhi court on Friday pulled up a lawyer for “walking” and then sitting “in a moving car” while appearing virtually before it on a mobile phone in a February 2020 riots case.
It also imposed Rs 2,000 as cost to be paid by the lawyer’s client Anas — an accused in the case — on February 20, the next date of hearing.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma court was hearing the case against former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and others, which was at the stage of the defence cross-examining prosecution witnesses.
“I do not find any kind of professionalism behind such conduct and submissions of Mehmood Pracha (the counsel of Anas). This is another glaring misuse of VC, which has to be stopped,” said the judge.
In the morning, advocate Sikander, who appeared for Anas, told the court that main counsel Mehmood Pracha is busy conducting a cross examination in another case, where day-to-day trial has been directed by the Supreme Court, and thus could not make it to the hearing.
In the order, the judge said, “He (Sikander) was already informed that just because that case has been directed to be taken up on a day-to-day trial basis, the responsibility of the counsel does not come to an end for this case. It was further informed that such a request is not entertainable and he was advised to inform the main counsel accordingly.”
After the lawyers of the other accused finished cross-examination, they requested the court to allow Pracha — who had to examine the prosecution witness — to appear through VC. After the court allowed the request, Pracha initially didn’t appear and made the judge wait.
Following this, the judge gave one last opportunity to Pracha to cross-examine the witness on February 20. This is subject to Anas paying Rs 2,000 to the witness who was to be cross examined by Pracha.
“Thereafter, Pracha appeared through VC, while walking on open land through a mobile phone and thereafter, he continued appearing through VC while in a moving motor vehicle,” said the judge.
Though Pracha appeared before the court via VC, the cross-examination could not take place. Following this, the court directed Anas’ lawyers to appear at the time they are called in the next hearing without requesting for a passover.
Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey, appearing for the prosecution, alleged that Hussain, Anas and other co-accused in the case had vandalised and set ablaze the godown of Harsh Trading Company owned by the complainant in the case, Karan, during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Valuables lying in the godown were also allegedly stolen by the rioters.
It also imposed Rs 2,000 as cost to be paid by the lawyer's client Anas — an accused in the case — on February 20, the next date of hearing 
Share
