words per minute
13
AkhilDubey
00:00
Speed
In these appeals we are required to consider the special provisions laid down by section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for a dishonoured cheque trial and to consider how far certain assertions made by the accused are in accordance with the provisions contained in the two sub sections of that section. The High Court had before it a large number of writ petitions and applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Most of those petitions were filed on behalf of the accused but a few were also at the instance of the complainants. On the basis of the grievances made and reliefs prayed for in those petitions the High Court framed the following two questions as arising for its consideration. Whether sub section of section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, confers an unfettered right on the complainant and the accused to apply to the court seeking direction to give oral examination in chief of a person giving evidence on affidavit, even in respect of the facts stated therein and that if such a right is exercised, whether the court is obliged to examine such a person in spite of the mandate of section 145 of the Act Whether the provisions of section 145 of the Act, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2002, for short the amending Act of 2002 are applicable to the complaints under section 138 of the Act pending on the date on which the amendment came into force In other words, do the amended provisions of section 145 and of the Act operate retrospectively Answering the questions after a detailed and careful consideration of all the relevant provisions and earlier decisions of courts, the High Court held that the person complainant or his witness giving evidence 3 on affidavit may be summoned by the court for putting questions as envisaged under section 165 of the Evidence Act vide paragraph 24 of the judgment. He would also be summoned on an application made by the accused but the right of the accused is limited to cross examination of the witness In terms.