Dear Sir,
My answers are as follows:
a) Should I contact the court immediately through email / fax to inform the situation (as suggested by Adv. Nehra) and later follow up with filing via a lawyer
Ans. I shall reply your bonafide question as a retired judge that there are no chances of getting any reply to your query either bye-mail or otherwise. Court is not bound to reply. You are the defense witness so better contact the concerned Prosecutor because he must be aware of where his witness reside and what is the correct address of the witness after so many years.
b) Should I file only via a lawyer and forget about immediate response through email/telephone/fax?
Ans: Courts are not correspondence Courts in India. Better engage any lawyer or get a friend of that place and try to contact the concerned Prosecutor. Get know the next date of hearing and appear on that date positively.
======================================================================================
Treatment of Witnesses
The present judicial system has taken the witnesses completely for granted. Witnesses are summoned to the Court regardless of the fact that they have no money, or that they cannot leave their family, children, business etc. and appear before the Court. But that's not all. On reaching the Court, some are told that the case has been adjourned (for reasons that may run into infinity) and the respective lawyer politely gives them a further date for their next appearance.
In the matter of Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court observed,
"A witness has to visit the Court at his own cost, every time the case is differed for a different date. Nowadays it has become more or less fashionable to repeatedly adjourn a case. Eventually the witness is tired and gives up."
The Court further held that while adjourning a case without any valid cause, a Court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice.2 Most witnesses have to wait their turn out. And when their time for deposing or the giving of evidence comes, the lawyers examine and cross examine them as if they themselves are the perpetrators of the crime.