Affidavit evidence under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be followed by a fresh examination-in-chief; summoning is only for cross-examination.

Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits complainant evidence by affidavit, and the court's power under sub-section (2) is confined to summoning the deponent for cross-examination, not for a fresh examination-in-chief. Read with the statutory scheme and supported by the affidavit evidence framework in civil procedure and section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision is meant to expedite trial and avoid of evidence. Since the complainant had already been cross-examined and no prejudice was shown, the challenge to requiring a second examination-in-chief failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complainant who has given evidence on affidavit can be summoned only for cross-examination or can be required to repeat examination-in-chief in court.

Analysis: Section 145 contains a non obstante clause permitting complainant's evidence on affidavit, while sub-section (2) empowers the Court, on application by either side, to summon and examine the deponent. Read reasonably and in the context of the statutory scheme, that power is meant to secure cross-examination of the person who has filed the affidavit, not to require a second examination-in-chief. The provision was intended to expedite trial and avoid unnecessary repetition of evidence. The Court also noted that the appellant had already cross-examined the complainant and had not shown any prejudice. Reliance on provisions governing affidavit evidence under the civil procedure regime and on section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure supported the same construction.

Conclusion: Section 145 does not authorize summoning the deponent for fresh examination-in-chief after affidavit evidence has been filed; the summoning power is confined to cross-examination, and the appellant's challenge failed.

---