In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that an accused person cannot submit evidence through an affidavit in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court set aside an order of a lower court that had allowed an accused to file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.
Background:
The case arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque. During the trial, the accused (respondent) was permitted to file an affidavit as her examination-in-chief instead of appearing in person. The complainant (petitioner) challenged this, arguing it was contrary to law.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether an accused can submit evidence via affidavit in Negotiable Instruments Act cases
2. Interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments on the issue
Court’s Decision:
The High Court ruled that allowing the accused to submit evidence through an affidavit is illegal and unsustainable. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confers the right to give affidavit evidence only to the complainant, not the accused.
The court observed: “The statute does not confer any right on the accused to file his evidence by way of an affidavit. It is the right of the complainant, and the legislature in its wisdom has excluded the same right to be conferred upon the accused.”
The judgment relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010), which had ruled against allowing accused persons to give evidence via affidavit in such cases.
Justice Nagaprasanna disagreed with a previous Karnataka High Court ruling in Afzal Pasha v. Mohamed Ameerjan (2016) that had permitted accused persons to submit affidavit evidence. The judge held that the Afzal Pasha judgment was per incuriam (made without regard to precedent) as it was inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings.
The High Court quashed the lower court’s order permitting affidavit evidence and directed the accused to appear in person to tender evidence if desired. It also allowed the petitioner’s application for further cross-examination of the accused.
Also Read
Case Details:
Writ Petition No. 3519 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Petitioner: Mrs. Zaheda Inamdhar
Respondent: Dr. Fatima Hassina Sayeedha
Lawyers: Sri P.P. Hegde (Senior Advocate for Petitioner), Sri Umesh M.N. (for Respondent)
