- (1.) The conspectus of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, complainant-respondent Dharampal (for brevity "the complainant") filed a complaint against petitioner-accused Pawan Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NI Act"). During the pendency of the case, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P2) to recall the complainant (CW1) for further cross-examination, inter-alia pleading that he (complainant) has already admitted his signatures on receipts (Ex.D2 to Ex.D4). The petitioner examined Prem Kumar (DW1) in his defence, wherein, the complainant had put a suggestion to him that the indicated receipts were given regarding the cheque, bearing No.911883 and not against the impugned amount of cheque in question, bearing No.922883. Thus, there is an ambiguity in this respect. In order to clear this ambiguity, the petitioner sought to summon the complainant for further cross-examination in this relevant connection.
(2.) The respondent-complainant refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply (Annexure P3).
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P2) of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P4).;