Cheque dishonour conviction fails when sole complainant does not face further cross-examination despite recall.

A conviction for dishonour of cheque was found unsustainable where the complainant, the sole witness, was recalled for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC but repeatedly failed to appear despite sufficient opportunity. His testimony was therefore treated as incomplete and unreliable, and the prosecution foundation collapsed once that evidence was excluded. The accused's defence was also tested against the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the materials produced were not held sufficient to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. Even so, the defective complainant evidence could not support the conviction, and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque could be sustained when the complainant, after being recalled, failed to tender himself for further cross-examination, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complainant was the sole witness. Although the trial court allowed recall for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he remained absent on repeated dates and did not submit to further cross-examination despite sufficient opportunity. In such circumstances, his testimony could not be treated as complete evidence and ought not to have been relied upon. Once that evidence was excluded, the foundation of the prosecution case became unsustainable. Independently, the accused's defence was assessed against the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The materials produced by the accused were held insufficient to conclusively rebut the presumption on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, but that did not cure the defect arising from the unusable testimony of the complainant.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the complainant's evidence was liable to be discarded for failure to undergo further cross-examination. The accused was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sole complainant-witness, after recall for further cross-examination, persistently fails to subject himself to cross-examination despite sufficient opportunity, the evidence cannot be relied upon to support conviction, and the resulting judgment is liable to be set aside.

---