Court Upholds Trial Decision on Complainant's Affidavit in Section 138 Case

The court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application to call the complainant for recording examination-in-chief in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It clarified that introducing facts in the affidavit not in the complaint would not prejudice the accused as the content could be challenged during cross-examination. The court emphasized the complainant's freedom to provide evidence by affidavit under Section 145, with the option for cross-examination if requested by the accused. The judgment affirmed the trial court's order as just and proper, emphasizing the importance of addressing evidence admissibility objections during the trial for a fair process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application to call complainant for recording examination-in-chief.
2. Interpretation of Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act regarding evidence by way of affidavit.
3. Consideration of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 145.
4. Concerns regarding introduction of facts in affidavit not in the complaint.
5. Prejudice to accused and right to cross-examination.
6. Application of Supreme Court observation in Bipin Shantilal Panchal case.
7. Justification of trial court order and rejection of application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the rejection of an application by the trial court to call the complainant for recording examination-in-chief in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant argued that introducing facts in the affidavit not in the complaint would prejudice the accused. However, the court emphasized that the affidavit's content can be challenged during cross-examination, ensuring no prejudice to the accused.

2. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, highlighting the freedom given to the complainant to provide evidence by affidavit. Referring to the Division Bench's decision, it clarified that the complainant's evidence on affidavit can be accepted without the need for further examination-in-chief, unless requested by the accused for cross-examination.

3. The judgment also discussed the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 145, emphasizing that the court must summon and examine the person giving evidence on affidavit upon application by the prosecution or accused. The court dismissed the argument that the Division Bench did not consider this provision, affirming that it was indeed taken into account in the decision.

4. Addressing concerns about facts introduced in the affidavit not present in the complaint, the court reiterated that such discrepancies can be addressed through cross-examination. The court emphasized the importance of cross-examination in bringing out omissions and contradictions in the evidence.

5. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's observation in the Bipin Shantilal Panchal case, highlighting that objections regarding evidence admissibility can be noted during the trial, with final decisions made in the judgment. This approach aims to prevent prejudice against accused persons during the trial process.

6. Ultimately, the court found the trial court's order just, legal, and proper, rejecting the applicant's challenge. It emphasized that objections regarding evidence admissibility should be noted during the trial for final decision at the judgment stage, ensuring a fair trial process. The proceedings before the trial court were stayed for four weeks to allow the applicant to challenge the order before the Supreme Court, concluding the judgment.

---