Affidavit evidence under Section 145 remains valid; deponents need not repeat examination-in-chief before cross-examination in cheque cases.

Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits affidavit evidence as examination-in-chief in cheque dishonour prosecutions, consistent with the Act's summary-trial scheme for speedy disposal. The right under Section 145(2) to summon the deponent is confined to securing cross-examination or clarification, not to compel the complainant or any other witness to repeat examination-in-chief in court. The expression "any person" was not read as creating a blanket entitlement to re-tender affidavit evidence. This interpretation preserves the procedural economy intended by Chapter XVII and avoids delay in the trial process.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant or any witness who has tendered evidence on affidavit is required to be summoned again for examination-in-chief, and whether the expression "any person" in that provision includes the complainant.

Analysis: Section 145 is an exception to the ordinary procedure and must be read with the object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, namely speedy disposal of cheque dishonour complaints by summary trial. The provision permits evidence on affidavit and preserves the right of the adverse party to summon the deponent for examination, which in this context is to be understood as cross-examination or re-examination, not as a right to insist that the witness repeat the examination-in-chief already given on affidavit. A contrary construction would defeat the legislative purpose by enabling delay in every case. The wide words "any person" were not construed to create a blanket right to re-tender examination-in-chief in court merely on application.

Conclusion: The accused has no unrestricted right under Section 145(2) to compel the complainant or other deponents to reappear for examination-in-chief after affidavit evidence has been filed; the application was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the Magistrate's order was dismissed, and the interpretation adopted preserved the expeditious procedure intended for cheque dishonour prosecutions.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affidavit evidence remains valid for examination-in-chief, and the power to summon the deponent on application is confined to securing cross-examination or clarification consistent with the summary-trial scheme, not to require repetition of examination-in-chief as a matter of right.

---