https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314485 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the governing Section 145 framework was read as not allowing the accused to replace oral examination-in-chief with affidavit evidence in the manner sought. Because the accused had already filed an affidavit and been cross-examined, the refusal to permit oral evidence was held unsustainable. The accused was therefore entitled to lead oral defence evidence, and the earlier affidavit evidence was to be discarded from the record. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314485 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the governing Section 145 framework was read as not allowing the accused to replace oral examination-in-chief with affidavit evidence in the manner sought. Because the accused had already filed an affidavit and been cross-examined, the refusal to permit oral evidence was held unsustainable. The accused was therefore entitled to lead oral defence evidence, and the earlier affidavit evidence was to be discarded from the record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314485