https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314493 In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot claim a right to tender defence evidence by affidavit. The controlling interpretation of Section 145 was that it expressly permits the complainant to give evidence on affidavit, but does not extend that facility to the accused, reflecting a deliberate statutory distinction between complainant and defence evidence. The later Supreme Court decision did not overrule that position. On that basis, refusal by the trial court to permit affidavit evidence from the accused was upheld. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:23:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314493 In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot claim a right to tender defence evidence by affidavit. The controlling interpretation of Section 145 was that it expressly permits the complainant to give evidence on affidavit, but does not extend that facility to the accused, reflecting a deliberate statutory distinction between complainant and defence evidence. The later Supreme Court decision did not overrule that position. On that basis, refusal by the trial court to permit affidavit evidence from the accused was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314493