JUDGMENT :

B.P.Colabawalla, J. - The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge the order passed by the Trial Court on 18th November 2022(for short "the impugned order") on Exh.24. Exh.24 was an application filed by the Accused under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission to cross examine the Complainant. This application came to be rejected by the impugned order.

2. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court, taking into consideration the law on the subject, as well as the fact that the matter is already more than 3 years old, refused to grant leave to the Accused to cross examine the Complainant. The Trial Court was careful enough to say that the Accused can rebut the presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 19881 by leading defence evidence, if so advised. The reason why leave was refused in the present case is because the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court is that the Accused who wants to contest the case (under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881), must be required to disclose the specific defence/s for such contest. In the present case, the only statement made by the Accused in the application is that there exists no legally enforceable liability. There are no particulars set out by the Accused to substantiate this statement. Merely vague statements have been made that the Complainant had narrated false facts and the Accused does not owe any money to the Complainant. The signature on the cheque has also not been denied by the Accused. Based on such vague averments the Trial Court held, and in my view correctly so, that it cannot arrive at the satisfaction that the Accused has a probable defence for which the Complainant must be re-called and the Accused must be granted leave to cross examine the Complainant. The Trial Court held that the Complainant cannot be recalled only to give pleasure to the Accused to cross examine the Complainant. As mentioned earlier, the Trial Court came to this conclusion after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a judgment of Delhi High Court as well as the judgment of this Court as more particularly set out in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned order.

3. I have gone through the impugned order in great detail and I have also perused the application filed by the Petitioner herein seeking leave to cross examine the Complainant under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. I find that the order passed by the Trial Court is well a reasoned order and fully justified in the facts of the present case. As mentioned earlier, the Trial Court correctly held that merely vague statements have been made in the application to somehow try and fit the case within the scope of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. In these circumstances, I find absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

6. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on the production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

Petition dismissed.