Probable defence required for cross-examination request under the Negotiable Instruments Act; bare application is insufficient.

In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination under section 145(2) must disclose a probable and specific defence. Where the accused had received statutory notice but gave no reply and did not set out any supporting grounds, the bare request to cross-examine was contrary to the settled procedure under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 145(2) of the Act. The Bombay HC held that such unsupported cross-examination was not justified and that the orders allowing it, and refusing recall, were illegal and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused could be permitted to cross-examine the complainant without disclosing any probable defence or making out grounds in the application under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the orders allowing cross-examination and refusing recall were sustainable.

Analysis: The complaint arose under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused had received statutory notice but had not replied to it or disclosed any defence. The governing approach under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required the accused to set out a specific defence when seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination. In the absence of any probable defence or supporting reasons, the order permitting cross-examination was contrary to the settled procedure.

Conclusion: The orders allowing the accused to cross-examine the complainant and rejecting recall were illegal and were quashed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an accused seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination must disclose a probable and specific defence; a bare or unsupported request does not justify permitting cross-examination.

---