Section 145 affidavit evidence and document objections: no fresh examination-in-chief, with proof and admissibility objections handled separately.

An affidavit filed by a complainant under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is treated as evidence, and Section 145(2) requires only that the witness be made available for cross-examination; it does not mandate a fresh oral examination-in-chief, so the request to recall the complainant into the witness-box was rejected. Objections to proof or irregular proof of documents should ordinarily be decided when the document is tendered, while pure admissibility objections may be deferred to final judgment; objections based on insufficient stamp duty must be decided immediately. Marking a document as an exhibit does not by itself prove its contents or execution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a complainant's affidavit is filed under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must again be called into the witness-box under Section 145(2); (ii) Whether objections relating to proof and admissibility of documents filed with such affidavit must be decided immediately or may be dealt with at a later stage.

Issue (i): Whether, after a complainant's affidavit is filed under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must again be called into the witness-box under Section 145(2).

Analysis: The settled interpretation of Section 145(2) was already that an affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief is to be treated as evidence, and on an application under sub-section (2), the witness must be made available for cross-examination. The provision does not require a fresh oral examination-in-chief merely because the affidavit has been filed. That position had already been clearly settled by binding precedent of the Court.

Conclusion: The request to compel the complainant to step into the witness-box again was rejected; the petitioners were not entitled to that relief.

Issue (ii): Whether objections relating to proof and admissibility of documents filed with such affidavit must be decided immediately or may be dealt with at a later stage.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between three kinds of objections: objection to insufficiency or irregular mode of proof, objection that a document is itself inadmissible, and objection based on insufficiency of stamp duty. Objections as to proof or irregular proof must ordinarily be decided when raised, because the party tendering the document may then cure the defect. Objections to admissibility may be tentatively noted and decided at the stage of final judgment. Objections based on stamp insufficiency must be decided then and there. The Criminal Manual, issued under the Court's constitutional power, also requires scrutiny of relevancy and admissibility at the stage documents are produced, and marking a document as an exhibit does not by itself dispense with proof of its contents and execution.

Conclusion: The trial court was required to decide objections to proof immediately, could defer pure admissibility objections to final hearing, and was justified in proceeding on the basis of the legal framework explained by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The petitions did not merit interference. The Court affirmed that the affidavit-based procedure under Section 145 does not require a second examination-in-chief, while preserving the distinction between proof objections and admissibility objections when documents are tendered in evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an objection to the proof of a document must ordinarily be decided at the stage of tendering evidence, whereas a pure objection to admissibility may be deferred to the final stage; marking a document as an exhibit does not by itself amount to due proof of its contents.

---