TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs complainant to undergo cross-examination, ensuring accused's rights.</h1> <h3>M/s. Indo International Ltd and U.M. Lodha Versus. State of Maharashtra and Sobhagyamal Kastoormal Singhvi</h3> The court modified the impugned order to direct the complainant to make himself available for cross-examination by the petitioners. The petitions were ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Obligation of the court to examine the complainant in person despite the submission of an affidavit.3. Applicability of precedents and judicial interpretations concerning Section 145.4. The right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The court analyzed Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which allows the complainant to submit evidence via affidavit. The section reads:- '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions, be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.- (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.'The court noted that this section was introduced to expedite the trial process under the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Obligation of the Court to Examine the Complainant in Person Despite the Submission of an AffidavitThe court referred to the conflicting judgments by single judges and the Division Bench on whether the court is obliged to examine the complainant in person even after the submission of an affidavit. The Division Bench in 'KSL Industries case' held that:- Once the complainant submits an affidavit of examination-in-chief, the court is not required to record the examination-in-chief again if the accused applies under Section 145(2). The complainant must be made available for cross-examination and re-examination.3. Applicability of Precedents and Judicial Interpretations Concerning Section 145The court discussed the precedents:- The decision in 'Raminder Singh's case' by a learned Single Judge, which mandated the court to record the examination-in-chief even after an affidavit was submitted.- The Division Bench's decision in 'KSL Industries case' which clarified that the court need not record the examination-in-chief again if an affidavit is already submitted and the accused applies under Section 145(2).The court concluded that the Division Bench's interpretation in 'KSL Industries case' is binding and has clearly addressed the issue.4. The Right of the Accused to Cross-examine the ComplainantThe court emphasized that under Section 145(2), the accused has the right to cross-examine the complainant. The court stated:- 'The mandatory provision of sub-section (2) is that the Court has to call the witness whose affidavit in examination-in-chief is filed for the cross-examination by the rival party when an Application under sub-section (2) of section 145 is made.'ConclusionThe court modified the impugned order to direct the complainant (Respondent No.2) to make himself available for cross-examination by the petitioners. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, ensuring the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant while adhering to the streamlined process intended by Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
