Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharat P. Deshpande, J
Olavio Antao v. State of Goa
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of case established. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning defense submitted. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. final conclusion confirming trial court's dismissal. (Para 8) |
| 4. legal reasoning on cheque issuance. (Para 9) |
1. Heard Mr. Sardesai learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vaze learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the State.
2. The petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting application under S.145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (The N.I. Act for short).
3. Mr. Sardesai would submit that the Petitioner is an accused before the Trial Court and has a right to cross - examine the witness. Accordingly, he filed an application disclosing probable defence. However, learned Trial court vide impugned order, rejected such application on the ground that there is no probable defence since the accused admitted of signing the cheque and issuing the same as security.
4. The provision of S.145 (2) of the N.I. Act is discretionary in nature and it is well settled that unless probable defence is shown, application for cross examining the complainant and witnesses cannot be allowed only because some application i
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
