The correct answer is (c) State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Prafulla B. Desai.
In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Prafulla B. Desai, the Supreme Court approved the use of video conferencing for the examination of witnesses in criminal cases. The Court held that video conferencing is a “useful tool” that can be used to ensure that witnesses are available to testify in court, even if they are located far away. The Court also noted that video conferencing can help to protect witnesses from intimidation and harassment.
The other options are incorrect. In the case of Rohtas Vs State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that video conferencing cannot be used to examine witnesses in criminal cases. The Court held that video conferencing is not a reliable method of taking evidence, and that it can lead to miscarriages of justice. In the case of Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that video conferencing can be used to examine witnesses in civil cases, but only if the parties agree to it. In the case of Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court did not rule on the use of video conferencing for the examination of witnesses.