Magistrate's orders quashed for procedural errors under Section 315 Cr.P.C and Section 145 NI Act requirements

The HC quashed and set aside the Magistrate's orders dated 06.12.2024 due to procedural irregularities in handling the accused's examination under Section 315 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate failed to obtain a written request from the accused to be examined as a witness and improperly granted adjournments despite the accused's absence, violating principles under Section 145 of the NI Act. The matter was remanded with directions that the accused must file a written application to act as a witness, after which the Magistrate shall allow oral evidence and consider documentary evidence only upon proper justification. Further evidence through other witnesses requires the Magistrate's discretion based on the defense raised. The case is restored to the stage for compliance with these procedures, ensuring adherence to natural justice and statutory mandates.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead evidence by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.Whether the Magistrate is required to record a written waiver and application by the accused under Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 315 Cr.P.C. before allowing the accused to examine himself as a witness.Whether the Magistrate's procedure allowing the accused to lead evidence by affidavit without a written request complies with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.The scope and applicability of Supreme Court directions in Indian Banks Association v. Union of India regarding expeditious disposal and acceptance of affidavits in Section 138 NI Act cases.Whether the directions in Indian Banks Association (2014) constitute a departure from the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. (2010) on the accused's right to give evidence by affidavit.Whether the Magistrate's closure of the accused's evidence for delay without compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was justified.The proper procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when the accused seeks to lead evidence in a Section 138 NI Act complaint trial.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The accused cannot be permitted to file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as Section 145(1) expressly provides for the complainant's evidence on affidavit but does not extend this right to the accused. The Magistrate's allowance of such evidence by affidavit is contrary to the statute and established case law.Before the accused can lead evidence by examining himself, the Magistrate must record a written waiver and application by the accused in terms of Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 315 Cr.P.C.; failure to do so renders the procedure invalid.The Magistrate's direction to the accused to lead evidence by filing an affidavit without a written request and waiver is a material irregularity and contrary to the provisions of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 315 and 316 Cr.P.C.The Supreme Court's directions in Indian Banks Association (2014) for expeditious disposal and acceptance of affidavits pertain to the complainant's evidence and do not confer a right on the accused to give evidence on affidavit; thus, these directions do not override the Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. (2010) ruling.The earlier Supreme Court decision in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. (2010) remains binding and authoritative, holding that the accused does not have the right to give evidence on affidavit in Section 138 NI Act proceedings; any contrary view is per incuriam and not binding.The Magistrate was justified in closing the accused's evidence due to delay, but only if the accused had complied with the procedural requirement of filing a written application under Section 315 Cr.P.C.; absence of such compliance vitiates the closure order.The correct procedure requires the accused to file a written application expressing the desire to act as a witness, after which the Magistrate may permit oral evidence and consider applications for production of documents, subject to objections and relevance.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically Sections 138, 143, 145, and the Criminal Procedure Code provisions under Sections 313, 315, and 316, emphasizing the distinct roles and evidentiary rights of complainant and accused.The Court relied heavily on binding Supreme Court precedents, notably Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. (2010), which clarified that the legislature deliberately confined affidavit evidence to the complainant and did not extend this right to the accused, reflecting constitutional protections under Article 20(3).The Court distinguished the Indian Banks Association (2014) directions as procedural guidelines aimed at expediting trials and facilitating affidavit evidence for complainants, not as a substantive change in accused's evidentiary rights.The Court underscored the principle that judicial bodies cannot "fill up" legislative omissions or modify statutory provisions under the guise of analogy or expediency, as this would amount to "taking over the legislative functions."The Court noted the fundamental difference in the nature of evidence typically led by complainants (documentary) and accused (often oral and rebuttal evidence), justifying the legislative distinction in affidavit rights.The Court recognized the importance of procedural safeguards under Section 315 Cr.P.C. requiring written waiver by the accused before self-examination, to protect constitutional rights and ensure fair trial standards.The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct procedural irregularities and ensure adherence to statutory mandates, while balancing the need for expeditious trial completion.

---