Affidavit evidence by accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be accepted in appropriate cases, with cross-examination preserved.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 145 permits evidence on affidavit, and the Supreme Court's later guidance recognises that an accused's affidavit may be accepted in appropriate cases, subject to the other side's right to cross-examine. The trial court erred by proceeding on the absolute view that the accused could never file such an affidavit. As the complaint had remained pending for a long period and the filed affidavit was capable of serving as examination-in-chief, the High Court set aside the refusal and directed that the affidavit be treated as the accused's examination-in-chief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be permitted to file an affidavit as examination-in-chief under Section 145, and whether the trial court's refusal to consider such affidavit was unsustainable.

Analysis: Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits evidence on affidavit, and the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court distinguishes the complainant's right to rely on affidavit evidence from the accused's ability to seek acceptance of affidavit evidence at the discretion of the trial court. The order under challenge was based only on the view that the accused could never file such affidavit, without considering the later guidance that the court may, in appropriate cases, accept affidavit evidence and then provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The complaint had remained pending for a long period, and the affidavit already filed by the accused was capable of being treated as examination-in-chief, subject to the respondent's right to seek cross-examination.

Conclusion: The refusal to accept the accused's affidavit was set aside, and the affidavit was directed to be treated as the accused's examination-in-chief.

---