Accused's right to cross-examine upheld under Negotiable Instruments Act

The Supreme Court held that under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused has an absolute right to cross-examine the complainant, and this right cannot be curtailed for lack of disclosing a specific defense. The court emphasized the importance of the accused's right to cross-examine and overturned the trial court's decision to reject the accused's application for cross-examination. The case was remanded, and the trial court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the trial court's order rejecting applications under section 145(2) of the NI Act for cross-examination of the complainant.
2. The extent of the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant under section 145(2) of the NI Act.
3. The requirement for the accused to disclose a specific defense to contest the case.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Challenge to the trial court's order rejecting applications under section 145(2) of the NI Act for cross-examination of the complainant.
The petitions challenge the trial court's order dated 07/10/2023, which rejected the applications made by the petitioner (original accused) under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for cross-examination of the respondent no. 1 (complainant). The trial court dismissed the applications on the grounds that the petitioner did not set out any specific point of defense and merely denied the complaint.

Issue 2: The extent of the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant under section 145(2) of the NI Act.
The petitioner argued that section 145(2) confers an unfettered right of cross-examination on the accused, stating that the Magistrate "shall" summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit. The petitioner contended that this right is mandatory and procedural, not substantive, and cannot be curtailed for lack of defense disclosure. The Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B. Thakore and other cases emphasized the importance of the right to cross-examine in such matters.

Issue 3: The requirement for the accused to disclose a specific defense to contest the case.
The respondent no. 1 opposed the applications, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union of India & Ors and Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Ors vs Kanchan Mehta, which require the accused to disclose a specific defense for contesting the case. The trial court, relying on these judgments, concluded that the petitioner's application was silent on specific grounds for cross-examination and dismissed it accordingly.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the relevant legal provisions and Supreme Court judgments, including Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited vs Nimesh B. Thakore, Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union of India & Ors, and Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Ors vs Kanchan Mehta. It noted that section 145(2) provides an absolute and unqualified right to the accused to summon and cross-examine the complainant. The court emphasized that the trial court must be satisfied that the specific defense disclosed by the accused is not sham or illusory and that the right to cross-examine cannot be lightly brushed aside.

Conclusion:
The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for cross-examination under section 145(2) of the NI Act. The averments made by the petitioner were sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of "setting up a specific defense." The writ petitions were allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside.

---