Back
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Cassius Infracon Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vidhyadhar Vttam Kerkar, S/o. Late Mr. Uttam Anant Kerkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bharat P. Deshpande, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard matter finally at the admission stage with consent.
2. The legality or otherwise of the order dated 14.8.2023 passed by the Magistrate is under challenge in the present petition.
3. Mr Karn would submit that the impugned order needs interference since it is first of all perverse and violative of principles of natural justice as no sufficient time was granted to the petitioner in the present matter and an application for recall of the order is rejected.
4. Mr Karn would submit that the action of the learned Magistrate in closing the cross examination of the complainant is clearly arbitrary and amounts to denial of an opportunity. He submits that such rejection is clearly against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence of granting fair opportunity to the accused to decide the matter as hurriedly did in the present matter. He would then submit that at the most some cost could have been awarded to the petitioners for the purpose of allowing the order of recall.
5. Mr Karn would further submits that order dated 14.8.2023 was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners thereby closing cro
The court reinforced that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused must file a specific application to recall a witness for cross-examination, failing which the trial can proceed without such....
[The judgment establishes that an accused in a Sec. 138 N.I. Act case has an absolute right to cross-examine the complainant if a probable defense is disclosed, reinforcing the procedural safeguards ....
Section 145(2) of Act, clearly reveals that Court on receipt of application of prosecution or accused has no option but to summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to facts conta....
In proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot provide evidence via affidavit and must request in writing to testify, adhering to strict procedural compliance.
The accused must disclose specific defense for contesting the claim of the complainant when seeking to recall and cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses.
The accused is not entitled to provide evidence via affidavit under the Negotiable Instruments Act; such a right is exclusively reserved for the complainant to ensure a fair trial.
For summoning under Section 138 of the NI Act, recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is not required, and the evidence of the complainant may be given by affidavit as per Section....
Affidavits can be accepted as evidence in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a Magistrate is not required to provide detailed reasons when issuing process against an....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of the accused's evidence on affidavit in a Section 138 proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the nature ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
