Defence evidence in cheque dishonour cases: accused entitled to lead oral evidence, and prior affidavit evidence was discarded.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the governing Section 145 framework was read as not allowing the accused to replace oral examination-in-chief with affidavit evidence in the manner sought. Because the accused had already filed an affidavit and been cross-examined, the refusal to permit oral evidence was held unsustainable. The accused was therefore entitled to lead oral defence evidence, and the earlier affidavit evidence was to be discarded from the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be permitted to give affidavit evidence in lieu of oral examination-in-chief and whether he can be allowed to adduce oral evidence in support of his defence.

Analysis: The governing law under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as interpreted in the cited precedents, does not permit the accused to substitute oral examination-in-chief with an affidavit of evidence in the manner sought. Once the accused had already filed such affidavit and been cross-examined, the trial court's refusal to permit oral evidence was found unsustainable. The Court held that the accused should be allowed to adduce oral evidence, and the earlier affidavit evidence was required to be discarded from the record.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to adduce oral evidence, and the orders rejecting that request were set aside.

---