Right to cross-examine in cheque dishonour cases survives unless the defence is sham or illusory.

Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives an accused in a cheque dishonour complaint an enforceable right to summon the complainant or witness for cross-examination. The affidavit of the complainant operates as examination-in-chief, and the court should not defeat this statutory right by a hyper-technical approach. The accused need only disclose a specific defence; the application need not set out a detailed case or be tested on merits at that stage. An application may be rejected only if the defence is sham or illusory, not merely because the disclosure is brief.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused in a cheque dishonour complaint can be denied cross-examination of the complainant under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely because the application does not set out a detailed defence, and whether the application in the present case disclosed a sufficient specific defence.

Analysis: Section 145(2) confers on the accused an enforceable right to have the complainant or his witness summoned for cross-examination. The affidavit evidence of the complainant is treated as examination-in-chief, and on being summoned at the instance of the accused, the deponent is to be cross-examined on the facts stated in the affidavit. The earlier decisions on cheque dishonour trials emphasize a summary and expeditious procedure, but they do not curtail the accused's right to cross-examine. The requirement, later explained in the context of contesting the complaint, is only that the accused should disclose a specific defence and not raise a sham or illusory plea to prolong the trial. At the same time, the court at this stage should not delve deeply into the merits of the defence or defeat the statutory right to cross-examination by a hyper-technical approach.

Conclusion: The application under Section 145(2) ought not to have been rejected on the ground that no specific defence was shown; the accused had disclosed a sufficient defence to invoke the right of cross-examination, so the rejection was unsustainable and the relief is in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused in a cheque dishonour case has an absolute statutory right under Section 145(2) to summon the complainant for cross-examination, and the application should be allowed if it discloses a specific defence without requiring the court to assess the defence on merits.

---