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 Upholds Right to Cross-Examine: Defense Justifies Recall for Examination (2)</h1> <h3>Prakashchandra Kankriya H.U.F. Versus Pramod</h3> Prakashchandra Kankriya H.U.F. Versus Pramod - TMI Issues:1. Challenge against the order allowing the respondent/accused to cross-examine the complainant under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. Allegation of loan advanced and dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.3. Legal interpretation of Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act regarding the right to recall a witness for cross-examination.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order permitting the respondent/accused to cross-examine the complainant under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act. The petitioner argued that the respondent did not disclose his defense or reasons for cross-examination, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court in support. However, the court found that the trial court did not conduct a summary trial, and the respondent has the right to apply for recalling a witness for cross-examination based on a plea of defense. Since the defense of the accused was not filed, the court held that there was a probable defense for cross-examination, thereby dismissing the challenge against the impugned order.2. The case involved the petitioner filing a private complaint against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for issuing a dishonored cheque of a significant amount. Despite issuing a notice for payment and the respondent's failure to comply, the petitioner initiated legal proceedings. The trial court summoned the accused, who denied the charges and requested cross-examination of the complainant under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in allowing this application without the accused disclosing his defense. However, the court found that the accused's right to cross-examine is based on a probable defense, leading to the dismissal of the challenge against the trial court's order.3. The legal interpretation of Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act was crucial in this judgment. Referring to the case law of Harish Chandra Biyani Vs. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., the court highlighted that the complainant can provide evidence by way of an affidavit, which may be subject to cross-examination if requested by the accused. The court emphasized that the trial court must summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts stated therein, as per the provisions of Section 145(2). The court clarified that the accused's right to cross-examine is a procedural safeguard, and in this case, the trial court did not err in allowing the respondent/accused to recall the complainant for cross-examination under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
TaxTMI 