The court affirmed that the trial court must complete proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within six months, emphasizing efficiency in the judicial process.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the dismissal of a petition seeking the recall of a witness under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, derived from a decision by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner argued that additional materials required further examination of PW.1; however, the court upheld the trial court's dismissal, citing a lack of compelling reasons for such a recall and the need for urgency in proceedings related to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the summary nature of these proceedings and the mandated timeline for trial completion. The petition stands dismissed and the related miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Table of Content
1. dismissal of petition to recall witness for further cross-examination. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court emphasized the need for efficient trial processes. (Para 3 , 5)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurantakam in Crl. M.P. No. 984 of 2025 in C.C. No. 89 of 2022, whereby the petition filed under Section 348 of BNSS to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused facing trial in C.C. No. 89 of 2022 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the cross-examination of PW.1 / complainant, the petitioner obtained certain materials which were omitted to be put to the witness during the cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application seeking to recall PW.1 for further cross- examination. However, the trial Judge, without appreciating that the recall and further cross-examination of PW.1 is essential for the just decision of the case, dismissed the application. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier cross-

examined PW.1 on 18.02.2022, 28.10.2022 and 07.11.2022. The trial Court, finding that the petition had been filed only to protract the proceedings, dismissed the application. This Court also finds that no special reason has been stated by the petitioner necessitating recall of PW1.

5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. This Court is also reminded that the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are summary in nature and that as per Section 143 of the N.I. Act, there is a mandate for the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months. However, the petitioner/accused has dragged on the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASA.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JYuvaraj – AppellantVersusS.P. Julius Cesar – RespondentCrl. O.P. No. 4670 of 2026 | Crl. M.P. No. 3439 of 2026

The court affirmed that the trial court must complete proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within six months, emphasizing efficiency in the judicial process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Yuvaraj – Appellant
Versus
S.P. Julius Cesar – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 4670 of 2026 | Crl. M.P. No. 3439 of 2026