The Madras High Court recently allowed an accused u.s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to examine the complainant’s side of the business and set aside the order passed by the lower court.
The Bench of Justices GK Ilanthirayin ruled that an accused has the right to demonstrate that a complainant in a particular case didn’t have the capacity and therefore the accused’s case is acceptable. further, it stated the accused can do the examination by producing relevant material and by examining documents.
A criminal revision was filed by the accused (SMD Mohamed Abdul Khader) who sought to set aside the Magistrate’s order wherein his petition u.s 243 of CrPC to issue witness summons was rejected.
The respondent had alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs 8,00,000 and had also issued a cheque for the same.
Later the said cheque was dishonored when presented in the bank, as the account closed, and subsequently respondent filed a complaint u.s 138 of the NI Act.
The Petitioner filed this revision petition after the petitioner made a statement u.s 313 of CrPC and further said he has evidence on his side thereafter, filed a petition to summon a list of witnesses which was rejected.
In Revision, the High Court relied on Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant wherein it was ruled that when the accused raises a contention that the complainant had no source of income to lend that amount then the accused can prove the same through cross-examination, relevant materials, and through witnesses.
The court further said that it is the court’s duty to consider the evidence/material and conclude if a case is made out or not.
Therefore, the court ruled that the petitioner can examine his side of the witnesses.
Title: SMD Mohamed Abdul Khader vs Muniswari
Case No.: Crl RC (MD) No.: 954/2021
