Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO. 2146/SS/2018
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO. 49
The accused has forwarded present application U/s. 145 (2) of
Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the submission of the accused that he
wants to cross-examine the complainant and therefore, he needs permission
to recall the complainant for cross-examination. He submitted that he is
having good defence. To show this fact, he needs to cross-examine to the
complainant. He submitted that he is ready to conduct the cross-
examination. Hence, prayed to allow him to conduct the cross-examination.
2. The complainant has filed his say on the backside of this
application and submitted that accused has failed to state any proper reason
in the present application to entitle the accused to cross-examine the
complainant. Accused has not complied the order of court dated
14/02/2024. Till today accused has not paid 20 % of amount as directed by
this court. Hence, lastly prayed to reject the application.
3. Heard. Perused the application and say.
4. Present complaint is filed U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. The documents are exhibited and the accused has filed present
application to allow him to conduct the cross-examination. I have perused
the Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act. I have also perused the
decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Goa Bench in Ms. Patricia Reiter v.
Mr. Somnath Sharad Mandrekar, Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 OF 2023
decided on 12-12-2023. It has held that,
“21. Reasons on which application has been rejected by the
Magistrate are therefore considered to be improper. Firstly learned
Magistrate observed that there is no cross examination of the
complainant and that accused is filing frivolous applications in order
to delay the matter. Learned Magistrate further observed that since
-- 1 of 2 --
2 C. C. NO. 2146/SS/2018
there is direction from this Court to decide the matter in a time bound
manner and therefore accused by filing such application is trying to
delay the matter. Mr Deshprabhu submits that roznama produced on
record shows that there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner
to delay the proceedings. Admittedly, petitioner filed an application
before the learned Magistrate permitting her to cross examine the
complainant, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2022.
Respondent challenged the said order before this Court in Criminal
Writ Petition No.90/2023/F. While disposing of said petition, learned
Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as
possible. Thus, first ground on which application is rejected is not at
all applicable and it is observed that discretion has not been properly
exercised. Second ground on which application is rejected is found in
paragraph nos.10 and 11 wherein learned Magistrate observed that
by giving opportunity to the petitioner to step into the witness box,
there is substantial compliance. Such observations are factually
incorrect for the simple reason that provision itself gives right to the
accused to file written statement in support of his defence and in
compliance of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Only thereafter stage of defence
evidence commence.”
In the case in hand, it is submitted by the accused that he is having
good defence. On this ground, he wants to conduct the cross-examination of
the complainant. Considering the reason cited in the application, it is just
and necessary to allow the application and allow the accused to conduct the
cross-examination. Hence, I pass following order :-
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. Permission is granted to conduct the cross-examination.
Date : 08/06/2026
Sd/-
(Y. P. Pujari)
Judicial Magistrate (First class)
48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --