TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K VERSUS SANTOSH SHABA GAONKAR ANR [ 2019 (4) TMI 2105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the accused is required to file an application seeking leave to cross examine the complainant. At that juncture the accused is having the second opportunity to set out grounds of his defence. Thirdly even during the arguments on that application and answer to the questions which may be posed by the learned Magistrate which is permissible. But it appears that he has not set out any ground or probable defence. Even in this matter also he failed to file any say and appear in the matter. The learned JMFC erred in granting the application of the accused to cross examine the complainant without there being any probable defence or any reason in the said application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the accused received the same, he failed to reply and neglected to comply with the statutory notice and to pay the amount. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. After receiving the summons the accused pleaded not guilty and applied for cross examination on 2.11.2018. It is contention of the petitioner that the accused did not disclose his probable defence and application was filed in utmost causal manner. The learned JMFC, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without seeking any say of the complainant, allowed the accused to cross examine the complainant. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order. The trial Court by order dated 27.11.2019 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 Meters and Instruments Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if the accused wants to contest the case, he must be required to disclose specific defence for such contest and for this purpose, it is open to the Court to ask specific questions to the accused at that stage. 9. In the present matter also inspite of notice no reply is filed nor notice was complied by the accused. Thus he was having first opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
