TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an accused seeking recall of the complainant or witnesses under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is required to disclose reasons in the application, and whether the affidavit evidence can thereafter be tested by cross-examination.
Analysis: Section 145(2) makes it obligatory for the Court to summon and examine a person giving evidence on affidavit when an application is made by the prosecution or the accused. The provision does not require the applicant to assign reasons for seeking such recall. An affidavit already filed in support of the complaint stands in the nature of examination-in-chief, and when the deponent is summoned under this provision, the proper course is cross-examination on the facts stated in the affidavit. The statutory scheme does not support the view that the accused must first show why the witness should be recalled.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to seek recall and cross-examination under Section 145(2) without stating reasons, and the refusal by the court below was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the accused's application under Section 145(2) was allowed, with the matter directed to proceed for cross-examination of the complainant and witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: An application by the accused under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need not disclose reasons, and once made, the deponent whose affidavit is on record may be summoned for cross-examination on the facts contained in that affidavit.
TaxTMI 
