9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. [ 2010 (1) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT] was made in para 12 of the judgment but as already discussed the law settled by the Apex Court in that case is clear and has not been set aside or dissented so far. Even that was not in issue before the Apex Court in case of Indian Bank Association. The petitioner being an accused, who is facing trial in complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not competent to tender his evidence through affidavit and learned trial Court has not committed any error while declining permission to this effect to petitioner. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. - Hon'ble Judges Surinder Gupta, J. For Appellant : R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the complainant, on affidavit, the High Court has held that subject to the provisions of sections 315 and 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused can also give his evidence on affidavit. The High Court was fully conscious that section 145(1) does not provide for the accused to give his evidence, like the complainant, on affidavit. But the High Court argued that there was no express bar in law against the accused giving his evidence on affidavit and more importantly providing a similar right to the accused would be in furtherance of the legislative intent to make the trial process swifter. 45. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, the High Court observed as follows: It is true that section 145(1) confers a right on the complainant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legislature that it could fill up without difficulty. Even though the legislature in their wisdom did not deem it proper to incorporate the word 'accused' with the word 'complainant' in section 145(1), it did not mean that the Magistrate could not allow the accused to give his evidence on affidavit by applying the same analogy unless there was a just and reasonable ground to refuse such permission. 47. There are two errors apparent in the reasoning of the High Court. First, if the legislature in their wisdom did not think it proper to incorporate a word 'accused' with the word 'complainant' in section 145(1) , it was not open to the High Court to fill up the self perceived blank. Secondly, the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt judgment. The appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 3915/2006 is allowed. 6. The above observations of the Apex Court in case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) have not been set aside or dissented in case of Indian Bank Association (supra), wherein in para 12 a reference was made to above observations as follows:- 12. The scope of Section 145 came up for consideration before this Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83, and the same was explained in that judgment stating that the legislature provided for the complainant to give his evidence on affidavit, but did not provide the same for the accused. The Court held that even though the legislature in their wisdom did not deem it proper to incorpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
