Sushil Kumar Aggarwal Petitioner v. Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. & Anr. S

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court, by an order dated 25 July 2013, dismissed the petitioner's application made under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the application did not specify the grounds or points on which the complainant was to be cross-examined and that, without disclosing the defence, the accused could not be permitted to cross-examine the complainant.

The petitioner relied on a Notice framed under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as setting out the defence. The respondent-complainant relied on a Settlement dated 18 September 2010 (showing an outstanding amount of around Rs. 11 lakh to be paid by the petitioner with liberty to return some supplied material to be adjusted) and on a letter dated 23 September 2010 (Annexure P-6) which stated that return of the goods was to be done by JV Retails Private Limited. The petitioner submitted that JV Retails Private Limited is a sister concern of the petitioner.

On petition, the court heard counsel, perused the impugned order, the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the Settlement (Annexure P-4) and the letter dated 23 September 2010 (Annexure P-6), and reached a decision quashing the impugned order subject to costs. Parties were directed to appear before the trial court on the date already fixed, and the petition and application were disposed of.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the application did not specify the points on which the complainant was to be cross-examined.
2. Whether a Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. that sets out the defence can suffice to permit cross-examination of the complainant without a literal, point-by-point specification of questions or grounds in the application under Section 145(2).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner's counsel submitted that the defence of the petitioner was clearly set out in the Notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and that rejection of the application under Section 145(2) therefore amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
• The petitioner also asserted that JV Retails Private Limited is a sister concern of the petitioner (in response to the respondent's reliance on Annexure P-6).

Respondent-complainant's Arguments

• Counsel for the respondent-complainant relied on the Settlement dated 18 September 2010 to show that there was an outstanding amount of approximately Rs. 11 lakh due from the petitioner to the respondent, with liberty for the petitioner to return some supplied material to be adjusted against the amount.
• Counsel also drew attention to the letter dated 23 September 2010 (Annexure P-6) to submit that the return of goods was to be effected by JV Retails Private Limited and not by the petitioner.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the impugned order of 25 July 2013, the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the Settlement (Annexure P-4) and the letter dated 23 September 2010 (Annexure P-6). The court found that the petitioner did possess material upon which the respondent-complainant ought to be cross-examined. The court rejected a literal requirement that an application under Section 145(2) must spell out every point on which cross-examination is to be conducted. Instead, the court held that the stand taken by the petitioner in the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was sufficient to make out a case for cross-examination of the respondent-complainant.

On that basis the court concluded that the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 145(2) was unwarranted. The court also observed that any delay occasioned to the proceedings could be remedied by putting the petitioner to terms.

Holding and Implications

The impugned order dated 25 July, 2013 is quashed subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent-complainant at the time of cross-examination before the trial court.

Consequences for the parties:

• The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the respondent-complainant in accordance with the court's directions; the impugned refusal to allow such cross-examination is set aside.
• The petitioner must pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-complainant at the time of cross-examination as a condition of the quashing of the impugned order.
• Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on the date already fixed.

Broader implications: The opinion does not discuss or purport to create any new precedent; it addresses the direct effect on the parties by allowing cross-examination subject to payment of costs and by quashing the specific trial court order.