SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Boopathy – Appellant
Versus
S.P. Julius Cesar – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 4723 of 2026 | Crl. M.P. No. 3362 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. G. Magesh Kumar

The right to recall a witness for cross-examination is contingent on demonstrating necessity, especially in summary proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Headnote:This petition, filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate denying a recall of a witness for cross-examination, claiming it was necessary for a just decision. The court noted that prior cross-examinations were conducted and found no justification for recall, emphasizing the summary nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It ultimately upheld the lower court's order, dismissing the petition.

Table of Content
1. recall of witness for further cross-examination. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's discretion in recalling witnesses. (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. 1030 of 2025 in C.C. No. 93 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. 93 of 2022 for the offence under Section 138 of 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 are 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 28.10.2022, 07.11.2022 and 21.06.2023. 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.

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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top