Affidavit evidence by accused in cheque dishonour cases is not permitted; Section 145 benefit applies only to the complainant.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot claim a right to tender defence evidence by affidavit. The controlling interpretation of Section 145 was that it expressly permits the complainant to give evidence on affidavit, but does not extend that facility to the accused, reflecting a deliberate statutory distinction between complainant and defence evidence. The later Supreme Court decision did not overrule that position. On that basis, refusal by the trial court to permit affidavit evidence from the accused was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused facing trial in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be permitted to tender defence evidence on affidavit.

Analysis: The controlling law was taken from the earlier Supreme Court interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which held that the provision expressly enables the complainant to give evidence on affidavit but does not extend the same facility to the accused. The distinction was treated as deliberate, and the accused's defence evidence was held to be materially different from the complainant's evidence in a cheque dishonour prosecution. The Court noted that the later decision referred to the earlier one but did not dislodge or overrule that position. On that basis, the trial court's refusal to allow affidavit evidence by the accused was held to be correct.

Conclusion: The accused has no right to tender defence evidence by affidavit in such proceedings, and refusal of permission was upheld.

---