JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard the parties with consent for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. In the present Petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is an Accused, in a matter pending before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for short), is challenging the rejection of his Application filed under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act by the learned Magistrate.

4. Heard Mr. Vibhav Amonkar for the Petitioner and Mr. Vithal Naik for the Respondent.

5. Mr. Amonkar would submit that the impugned order shows non-application of mind and denial of an opportunity to crossexamine the Complainant by disclosing specific defence in the Application. He submits that the learned Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error, thereby denying the valuable right of the Petitioner to cross-examine the Complainant and misconstrued the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. Accordingly, he submits that the Application disclosing the grounds of defence need not elaborate on each and every ground for defen