Affidavit evidence under the Negotiable Instruments Act is sufficient for examination-in-chief, subject to cross-examination.

In a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant may lead examination-in-chief by affidavit under Section 145(1), and the accused cannot insist on recalling the complainant-affiant for a fresh oral examination-in-chief. The affidavit remains subject to cross-examination, where omissions, contradictions, and the correctness of relied-upon documents can be tested. Documents filed with the complaint or affidavit are not proof merely because they are marked, and foundational facts such as dishonour or service may still require admissible evidence where necessary. The refusal to summon the complainant again for examination-in-chief was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused can insist on summoning the complainant-affiant for recording examination-in-chief in addition to the affidavit filed under Section 145(1).

Analysis: The affidavit filed by the complainant as examination-in-chief is not substantive evidence by itself unless the deponent verifies it on oath and remains subject to cross-examination. The accused is not prejudiced merely because the complainant leads evidence by affidavit, since omissions, contradictions, and the correctness of documents relied upon can be tested in cross-examination. Documents accompanying the complaint or affidavit do not become proof per se merely because they are marked, and matters such as dishonour, service, or other foundational facts may still require proof through admissible evidence where necessary.

Conclusion: The accused had no right to compel the complainant-affiant to enter the witness box again for examination-in-chief, and the rejection of the applications for witness summons was upheld.

---