Ruling reinforces Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, restricting affidavit evidence-in-chief to the complainant.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J., upheld the decision of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bhubaneswar, which rejected the accused's attempt to file evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment underscores the limitations placed on the accused regarding the mode of presenting evidence in such proceedings.
The case involved Brahmananda Pradhan and another petitioner, who were embroiled in a legal dispute with the State of Odisha and a business associate over the dishonour of a cheque. The petitioners, who contested the allegations, had submitted their evidence-in-chief via affidavit, which was subsequently discarded by the SDJM. The petitioners then sought intervention from the High Court, challenging the SDJM's order as being contrary to judicial interpretation and procedural fairness.
The High Court, however, reinforced the statutory interpretation previously laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore, asserting that Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits only the complainant to submit evidence-in-chief by affidavit. Sub-section (2) allows the court to summon and examine witnesses who have submitted affidavits but does not extend the same privilege to the accused.
The petitioners argued that the SDJM's decision failed to consider the uniform practice intended for speedy trials in cheque dishonour cases and overlooked their specific circumstances, including the advanced age of one of the petitioners. Despite these arguments, the High Court found no merit in their contentions, emphasizing that the statutory language and judicial precedents clearly delineated the boundaries of procedural rights in such cases.
The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's mandate that while complainants in cheque dishonour cases can present evidence by affidavit to streamline proceedings, the accused must adhere to conventional methods of evidence presentation, barring legislative amendments to the contrary.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the SDJM's ruling. This judgment is a reaffirmation of the procedural norms under the Negotiable Instruments Act, ensuring that the legislative intent and judicial interpretations remain consistent with the principles of justice and efficiency in legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 145(1) enables only the complainant to provide evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit, and the accused does not have the same liberty. Sub-section (2) only allows the court to summon and examine persons who have given evidence on affidavit, and does not provide any right for the accused to submit evidence-in-chief by affidavit.
Statutory provision(s):
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 145(1), Section 145(2), Section 138; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528.
Brahmananda Pradhan v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878729
