9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Quashing of order allowing cross-examination but not examination-in-chief of the complainant under section 145 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which allowed cross-examination but not examination-in-chief of the complainant. The petitioner, an accused, desired the complainant to be examined in Court and then cross-examined. The Court noted the obligation under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which requires the Court to summon and cross-examine any person giving evidence on affidavit upon application by either the prosecution or the accused. The respondent objected to the application on the grounds of the affidavit's alleged vagueness. However, the Court found that the affidavit was not vague, and there was no need to call the complainant for examination-in-chief, emphasizing the amendment's spirit to expedite case hearings and disposal under section 138 of the Act. The Court highlighted the mandatory nature of sub-section (1) of section 145 of the N.I. Act, which obligates courts to summon and examine the complainant upon application by the accused. Consequently, the petition was allowed. The learned J.M.F.C., Pune, was directed to summon the complainant, record his examination-in-chief, and then allow the accused-petitioner to cross-examine him. The trial was ordered to be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of the Order. With this decision, the Rule was made absolute, and the petition was disposed of.
|
