2024 (1) TMI 1292 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Allows Oral Evidence, Expedites Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act for a Speedy Trial, Adherence to Law Emphasized.

The HC allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders under Section 138 of the NI Act, thereby granting the petitioner the right to adduce oral ... Dishonour of Cheque - rejection of application for oral evidence - permission to adduce oral evidence in support of his defence - HELD THAT:- The question whether the accused, in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, is entitled to file an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief is no more res integra. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MANDVI CO-OP. BANK LTD. VERSUS NIMESH B. THAKORE [2010 (1) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT], it is held that 'What would be the extent and nature of examination in each case is a different matter and that has to be reasonably construed in light of the provision of Section 145(1) and having regard to the object and purpose of the entire scheme of Sections 143 to 146. The scheme of Sections 143 to 146 does not in any way affect the Judge's powers under section 165 of the Evidence Act.' In a recent decision of this Court in the case of SBI GLOBAL FACTORS LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, M/S. DHANSHREE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES [2021 (3) TMI 490 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court has held that an accused could not be permitted to file an affidavit of evidence in lieu of the examination-in-chief. The order of learned Magistrate of not permitting the petitioner to adduce oral evidence, does not stand. Since, earlier the petitioner himself submitted affidavit of evidence in lieu of his oral evidence, he was cross-examined. This consumed a lot of time of the Trial Court. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed. Petition allowed. Issues involved: The petition challenges orders u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, rejecting the application for oral evidence and confirming the same, leading to the filing of the present petition.Judgment Details:Challenge to Order Rejecting Oral Evidence Application:The petitioner sought to lead oral evidence after the complainant's side concluded, but the Trial Court rejected the application based on Section 145 of the NI Act. The petitioner relied on relevant legal precedents, including the case of Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83. The Court clarified that the accused cannot file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Court also referred to the decision in Murlidhar Chandiram Gyanchandani Vs. Jai Agencies and SBI Global Factors Ltd., emphasizing that the accused must be allowed to adduce oral evidence. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was granted permission to adduce oral evidence, with a direction for expedited trial proceedings.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and granting the petitioner the opportunity to adduce oral evidence in the case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the legal provisions and ensuring a speedy trial process.