Cheque Bounce | Accused Cannot Lead Evidence By Affidavit, Statute Only Permits Complainant To Tender Evidence In Such Form: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused in a cheque bouncing case is not entitled to forward his evidence by way of an affidavit, since, Section 145 (1) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 entails only a complainant to tender evidence in such form.

Justice Venkata Jotirmai Pratapa while passing the judgment has heavily relied upon Mandvi Coorporate Bankt Lmt vs. Nimesh B. Thakore wherein the Supreme Court had made a holistic analysis of Section 145 and held:

"In that view of the matter, the Petitioner being Accused cannot permitted to file an affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief, as the provision under Section 145 (1) only entails a complainant to tender evidence in such a mode. When the language of the provision is clear and plain, and provides only for one meaning, it should be understood that the Act speaks for itself."

The order was passed in a criminal petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of CrPc, praying that the Court may direct the Judicial Magistrate to accept his evidence in the form of an affidavit.

The petitioner/ accused contended that a case was initiated against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and at the stage of examination, when he filed his evidence in the form of an affidavit, the same was not accepted by the Court. Thereafter the accused filed a miscellaneous petition praying that the Court may accept his evidence in the form of an affidavit, but that petition, too, was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same the accused had approached the High Court contending that the trial court ought to have accepted his evidence in the form of an affidavit since no prejudice would be caused to the complainant.

The High Court said "A bare reading of the Section 145(1), makes it clear that the provision entails a complainant to give his evidence on an affidavit. No mention is made with respect to the Accused."

Furthermore, the bench referred to the Mandvi Coorporative Bank judgement to reiterate that when there is a specific bar by the legislature it is not open to the Court to fill up any 'perceived blanks'. Additionally, the court also noted that in a cheque bouncing case, the nature of evidence led by the complainant is different from that of an accused and the legislature keeping the said aspect in mind had extended the privilege of leading evidence by way of affidavit only to the complainant.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case no.: CrlP: 1594/2020

Counsel for petitioner: Shiva Prakash Reddy Venati

Counsel for respondents: D. Prasanna Lakshmi ( APP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order