TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta, [ 2017 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT ]. It can thus be seen that the trial of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is a class apart and the Magistrate is required to conduct the trial normally in a summary way and in accordance with the procedure laid down for summary trials and in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Meters and Instruments Private Limited. Coming to the present case, the impugned order cannot be faulted going by the casual nature in which the application, exhibit 12 was filed and the relief was sought. Perhaps, faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Act, 1881, (Act, for short) in respect of dishonour of a cheque dated 31.01.2018, drawn by the petitioner on his account with Syndicate Bank, Pale Branch for a sum of ₹2,64,375/-. Prior to the institution of the complaint, the first respondent had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner on 13.02.2018. Indisputably, the petitioner failed to comply with the said notice and has even failed to issue any reply to the said notice. 3. Before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed an application, exhibit 12, seeking leave to cross examine the complainant. The application is conspicuously silent as to the probable defence of the petitioner and the point on which the petitioner intends to cross examine the first respondent. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Association Ors. vs. Union of India Ors. 2014 (5) SCC 590 which has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta, 2018 (1) SCC (Cri) 477. 10. In terms of the directions issued in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), after appearance of the accused, the Magistrate should ask him to take notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. in order to enable the accused to enter his plea of defence and thereafter fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross examination (see para 23.4 of the judgment in the case of Indian Bank Association). 11. In the case of Met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In a given case, the accused can also disclose such grounds during the course of the hearing of the application and in answer to the questions which may be posed by the learned Magistrate as is permissible, (as held in para 20 of the judgment in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited). On none of these occasions, the petitioner thought it fit to disclose the grounds as to why and on what points he proposes to cross examine the complainant. In the present case, there was a fourth occasion to set out atleast such skeletal defence in the petition challenging the impugned order. The petition is also silent about such probable defence and/or the grounds on which the petitioner seeks to cross examine the complainant. No such grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
