https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426685 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, non-deposit of interim compensation under Section 143A does not justify foreclosing the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant. The statutory scheme already provides the consequence for non-payment by permitting recovery of unpaid interim compensation as if it were a fine, and that mechanism must be followed. A court cannot add an extra procedural penalty beyond the statute by denying cross-examination. The impugned order closing that right was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint was remitted for further proceedings with cross-examination permitted. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:46:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426685 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, non-deposit of interim compensation under Section 143A does not justify foreclosing the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant. The statutory scheme already provides the consequence for non-payment by permitting recovery of unpaid interim compensation as if it were a fine, and that mechanism must be followed. A court cannot add an extra procedural penalty beyond the statute by denying cross-examination. The impugned order closing that right was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint was remitted for further proceedings with cross-examination permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426685