https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307928 In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination under section 145(2) must disclose a probable and specific defence. Where the accused had received statutory notice but gave no reply and did not set out any supporting grounds, the bare request to cross-examine was contrary to the settled procedure under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 145(2) of the Act. The Bombay HC held that such unsupported cross-examination was not justified and that the orders allowing it, and refusing recall, were illegal and liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2023 08:44:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307928 In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination under section 145(2) must disclose a probable and specific defence. Where the accused had received statutory notice but gave no reply and did not set out any supporting grounds, the bare request to cross-examine was contrary to the settled procedure under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 145(2) of the Act. The Bombay HC held that such unsupported cross-examination was not justified and that the orders allowing it, and refusing recall, were illegal and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307928