Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.16 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010
11. Once specific order listing the matter for defence evidence was
passed by Learned Trial Court on 11.01.2017, there was no justification to
wait if at all the petitioner wanted to challenge order dated 11.01.2017. It is
also to be noted that the order passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on
Muneev ur Rehman vs Taufiq ur Rehman Page no 6 of 11
CR 338/17
11.01.2017 is in accordance with the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indian Bank Association case (supra) and by Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Rajesh Aggarwal case (supra). Therefore, on the ground of
limitation as well as on merit, the prayer of the petitioner against order dated
11.01.2017 is liable to be rejected.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
Relying upon the judgment by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal and
ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338, application u/s 145 (2) NI Act was dismissed.
M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B.Thakore on 11 January, 2010
In Mandvi Cooperative Bank
Ltd. vs Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83 Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that when an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is moved, the Court has to
recall the complainant and his witnesses for crossexamination. Learned
counsel for respondent also submitted that when an application u/s 145 (2) NI
Act is moved, Learned Trial Court has no discretion and the complainant has
to be recalled for crossexamination. However, he submitted that the right of
the accused to seek recall of the complainant for crossexamination has to be
exercised when the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC is framed. According to Learned
counsel for the respondent, the application cannot be entertained and is not
maintainable once the matter has been adjourned for defence evidence. The
issue whether Learned Trial Court has discretion to allow or not to allow the
application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is not before me and therefore, I will not deal
with the same.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009
12. Now, I come to order dated 21.08.2017, whereby the application
of the accused u/s 145 (2) NI Act was dismissed. Learned counsel for the
respondent has not disputed that revision is maintainable against order
passed on an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act. The provision u/s 145 (2) NI Act
appears like the provision u/s 311 Cr. PC, however, there is difference in two
provisions. When the accused makes an application u/s 145 (2) NI act, he
seeks recall of a witness, whose presummoning evidence on affidavit has
been adopted as postsummoning evidence. The evidence was not recorded
in presence of the accused and the first opportunity for him to have the
examination i.e. the examination of the witnesses of the complainant in his
presence is after framing of the notice. Section 145 (2) NI Act deals with
valuable right of the accused and therefore, revision against order passed on
an application u/s 145(2) NI Act would be maintainable in view of law laid
down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ripen Kumar vs
Department of Customs (2000) 88 DLT 541 though, revision is not
Muneev ur Rehman vs Taufiq ur Rehman Page no 7 of 11
CR 338/17
maintainable against an order passed u/s 311 Cr. PC as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam (2009) 5
SCC 153.
Harpreet Singh vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 14 January, 2015
In support of his arguments, Learned counsel for petitioner has
relied upon judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Harpreet
Singh vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and anr. 2015 Lawsuit (Del) 79 and
he has also relied upon judgment by Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of
Indian Bank Association and others vs Union of India (UOI) and ors.
MANU/SC/1391/2013 which was cited at bar by Learned counsel for the
respondent.
All India Vijaya Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 November, 2001
In Indian Bank Association case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has given the directions which are to be followed by the trial Courts
while trying matters u/s 138 NI Act and the directions are in para 20 of the
judgment. Direction (4) provides that after framing of the notice u/s 251 Cr.
PC to enable the accused to enter his plea of defence, the case should be
fixed for defence evidence unless an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is moved
for recalling a witness for crossexamination. In the same judgment, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also observed in para 18 that the power u/s 145 (2) NI Act
can be exercised by the trial Court on an application of the accused or suo
moto. Here we are not concerned with suomoto exercise of the power by
Learned Trial Court. If the petitioner wanted to crossexamine the
complainant/respondent, the application u/s 145 (2) NI Act had to be moved.
Admittedly, the application was not moved when the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC
was framed.