Application No. 11862 of 2017. Case: Vimal Yash Sahwal Vs State of U.P. and Another. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Application No. 11862 of 2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Virendra Kumar Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: G.A. and Shailesh Pandey, Adv. |
| Judges | Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 145 |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
On 2.5.2017, this Court passed the following order;
" Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Counter affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the opposite no.2 which is taken on record.
It is admitted that against the order dated 13.04.2016, the opposite party no.2 filed an Application under Section 482 No.15537 of 2016 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.05.2016 as under;
" The applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 13.4.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 1199 of 2014 (Anil Upadhyay vs. Vimal S. Shahwal) whereby an application moved for examination in chief of the applicant has been rejected. Learned Magistrate would note in the impugned order that the applicant has already made a statement on oath, therefore, he can be cross-examined.
The impugned order would reflect that the accused had no objection on being cross-examined by the counsel of the opposite party, further, Section 145(2) of N.I. Act would provide that on an application of the prosecution or the accused, the court may summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. As per Section 145 of N.I. Act evidence can be taken on affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial