Accused cannot give evidence on affidavit in dishonour of cheque cases under Section 315 Cr.P.C

The Rajasthan HC dismissed a petition where the accused in a dishonour of cheque case sought to give evidence on affidavit under Section 315 Cr.P.C read with Section 145(2) of N.I. Act. The court held that the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association case only issued directions for speedy disposal of Section 138 cases but never permitted accused to give evidence on affidavit. The trial court had already allowed the petitioner to examine himself as defence witness, but the request for affidavit evidence appeared to be a delay tactic. Finding no illegality in the trial court's orders, the HC dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the dismissal of a revision petition against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioner sought to give evidence on affidavit under Section 315 Cr.P.C read with Section 145(2) of N.I. Act.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Dismissal of revision petition against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate:
The instant misc. petition was filed against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, affirming the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, where the application filed by the petitioner under Section 315 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145(2) of N.I. Act was dismissed.

Details:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act regarding the dishonoring of a cheque. The petitioner sought to give evidence on affidavit under Section 315 Cr.P.C read with Section 145(2) of N.I. Act, stating his defense. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application, which was challenged in a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and subsequently dismissed on 10.01.2023.

Issue 2: Legal provisions and precedents:
The petitioner relied on Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows the complainant to give evidence on affidavit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation in various cases clarified that summoning a person under Section 145(2) for examination is for cross-examination purposes only. Additionally, the Apex Court held in the case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd that the accused cannot file an affidavit under Section 145(1) of the Act.

Details:
The legal provisions under Section 145 of the Act enable the complainant to provide evidence on affidavit, subject to exceptions. The Supreme Court's interpretation emphasized that summoning under Section 145(2) is for cross-examination purposes. Furthermore, the Court's decision in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd's case established that the accused cannot file an affidavit under Section 145(1) of the Act.

Issue 3: Dismissal of the misc. petition:
The Court, after considering the arguments of both parties and perusing the impugned orders, found no illegality or perversity in the decisions. The petitioner's insistence on giving evidence on affidavit was viewed as an attempt to delay proceedings, as the trial court had already permitted the petitioner to appear as a defense witness. Consequently, the misc. petition was dismissed.

Details:
The Court, after reviewing the arguments and legal precedents, concluded that the impugned orders did not warrant interference. The petitioner's desire to give evidence on affidavit, despite being allowed to appear as a defense witness, was seen as an attempt to delay proceedings. Therefore, the Court dismissed the misc. petition and the stay application.

---