9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Act, for short) in respect of dishonour of a cheque dated 31.01.2018, drawn by the petitioner on his account with Syndicate Bank, Pale Branch for a sum of Rs.2,64,375/-. Prior to the institution of the complaint, the first respondent had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner on 13.02.2018. Indisputably, the petitioner failed to comply with the said notice and has even failed to issue any reply to the said notice. 3. Before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed an application, exhibit 12, seeking leave to cross examine the complainant. The application is conspicuously silent as to the probable defence of the petitioner and the point on whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (5) SCC 590 which has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited & anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta, 2018 (1) SCC (Cri) 477. 10. In terms of the directions issued in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), after appearance of the accused, the Magistrate should ask him to take notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. in order to enable the accused to enter his plea of defence and thereafter fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross examination (see para 23.4 of the judgment in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking leave to cross examine the complainant. In a given case, the accused can also disclose such grounds during the course of the hearing of the application and in answer to the questions which may be posed by the learned Magistrate as is permissible, (as held in para 20 of the judgment in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited). On none of these occasions, the petitioner thought it fit to disclose the grounds as to why and on what points he proposes to cross examine the complainant. In the present case, there was a fourth occasion to set out atleast such skeletal defence in the petition challenging the impugned order. The petition is also silent about such probable defence and/or the grounds on which the petitioner seeks to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
