9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The rejection of applications for issuing summons to the accused for recording examination-in-chief based on affidavits under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of applications for issuing summons based on affidavits The petitioners, accused in three criminal cases, filed applications for summons to examine the complainant's partner for recording his examination-in-chief based on an affidavit and documents filed during trial. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected these applications citing Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that evidence in the form of affidavit is subject to cross-examination and omissions can be addressed during that process. The Magistrate held that the petitioners cannot be compelled to enter the witness box to lead evidence contradicting the affidavit under Section 145. Issue 2: Interpretation of procedural laws The counsel for the accused referred to Section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 16, 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing that affidavits in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are used to fill deficiencies in complaints. The counsel highlighted the importance of cross-examination to bring out contradictions and the need for witnesses to verify facts stated in affidavits. It was emphasized that documents exhibited along with affidavits cannot be considered as evidence per se without proper examination and cross-examination. Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements The Court emphasized the procedural requirements under Sections 138, 139, 140, 141 of the Act, stating that documents submitted with complaints or affidavits cannot be treated as evidence on their own. The Court clarified that the affiant must stand in the witness box, verify the facts in the affidavit under oath, and be subject to cross-examination by the accused. The Court rejected the petitions challenging the rejection of summons applications, noting that the Trial Court should ensure compliance with procedural laws during the trial. Conclusion: The petitions challenging the rejection of applications for issuing summons based on affidavits were dismissed. The Court highlighted the importance of proper verification and cross-examination of facts stated in affidavits, emphasizing the procedural requirements for conducting trials in such cases. An undertaking was accepted regarding a non-bailable warrant, and appropriate steps were to be taken to communicate the court's order to the concerned police station.
|
