Section 145(2) recall requires a grounded application; cross-examination may be closed if no probable defence is shown.

In Section 138 prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the special summary procedure under Sections 143 and 145 permits the complainant's affidavit to be treated as evidence, while the accused's recall of the witness for cross-examination depends on a proper application under Section 145(2) disclosing grounds or a probable defence. The right to recall is not automatic merely because the accused pleads not guilty. Where no such application was filed and no probable basis for recall was shown, closure of cross-examination and refusal to recall were not illegal or perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Magistrate could close the complainant's cross-examination and reject recall of the earlier order when the accused had not filed an application under Section 145(2) of the Act disclosing probable grounds for recall and cross-examination.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are ordinarily to be tried summarily and with expedition. Sections 143 and 145 create a special procedure under which the complainant's affidavit can be read as evidence, and the accused may seek recall of the witness for cross-examination by moving an application under Section 145(2). The right to seek recall is not automatic in the abstract; the accused is required to place before the court an application disclosing grounds or a probable defence justifying such recall. Once the substance of accusation is explained and the accused pleads not guilty, the matter proceeds in accordance with the special procedure unless a proper application under Section 145(2) is made. On the record, no such application was filed when cross-examination was closed, and no probable defence was shown in support of recall.

Conclusion: The closure of cross-examination and rejection of recall did not suffer from illegality or perversity, and the challenge failed.

---