Affidavit evidence under the Negotiable Instruments Act overrides Section 200 CrPC, but limitation and condonation must still be examined.

Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits the complainant's evidence to be given on affidavit and overrides the requirement of examination on solemn affirmation under Section 200 CrPC in a Section 138 prosecution; that objection was rejected. The complaint was also treated as potentially time-barred under Section 142, and cognizance and summons could not stand without a reasoned consideration of delay and any condonation. The order taking cognizance and issuing summons was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on limitation and other relevant aspects.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant's examination on solemn affirmation under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was mandatory despite Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was sustainable when the complaint appeared to have been filed beyond the prescribed period without consideration of delay and its condonation.

Issue (i): Whether, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant's examination on solemn affirmation under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was mandatory despite Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 permits the complainant's evidence to be given on affidavit notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The non obstante clause overrides the requirement of examination on solemn affirmation under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory scheme therefore allows the complaint evidence to be read in the proceeding on affidavit, subject to just exceptions.

Conclusion: The plea based on Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was untenable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was sustainable when the complaint appeared to have been filed beyond the prescribed period without consideration of delay and its condonation.

Analysis: The complaint appeared to be beyond the permissible period under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and cognizance after the prescribed period could be taken only upon satisfaction of sufficient cause for not filing within time. The order sheet did not show any application of mind to the question of delay or any condonation before issuance of summons. The High Court also passed only a summary order without dealing with these contentions.

Conclusion: The order taking cognizance and issuing summons was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to reconsider the complaint, including delay and its condonation, in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration on limitation and other relevant aspects, while the challenge based on Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145 overrides the requirement of examination under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cognizance cannot be sustained where the complaint is time-barred without a reasoned consideration of delay and its condonation.

---