IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
VALMIKI MENEZES
Conroy J.F. De Melo, Son of Adv. Fortunato De Melo – Appellant
Versus
Civilco Engineers & Associates – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matters.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are disposed of finally.
3. These two petitions impugn orders dated 06.12.2024 respectively, passed in Criminal Case Nos.OA/30/2020 and OA/925/2019 by the J.M.F.C., A-Court, Ponda. By the impugned orders, the J.M.F.C. has dismissed an application filed by the Petitioner, the original Accused in these proceedings, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and refused leave to the Accused to lead his evidence. The Respondent is the Complainant in both these complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Criminal Case No. OA/30/2020 pertains to a cheque dated 17.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- whilst Criminal Case No. OA/925/2019 pertains to a cheque dated 30.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Both these cheques have been signed and executed by the Accused/Petitioner herein in favour of the Complainant/Respondent.
4. In both complaints, after the cheques were dishonoured, notices were issued to the Accused calling upon the Accused to pay the amounts under the cheque; Accuse
Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore
In proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot provide evidence via affidavit and must request in writing to testify, adhering to strict procedural compliance.
The right to provide evidence via affidavit under section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is exclusively granted to the complainant, and the accused does not possess this right.
The accused is not entitled to provide evidence via affidavit under the Negotiable Instruments Act; such a right is exclusively reserved for the complainant to ensure a fair trial.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Yashpal Thakur, Mukund Pandya For the Respondent : Amit Palkar, Mukesh Modi
An accused in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be permitted to file an Affidavit-of-Evidence in lieu of Examination-in-Chief.
The judgment established that while complainants may use affidavits for testimony, accused individuals must testify orally, ensuring their fundamental rights in a criminal trial are upheld.
The court established that under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only complainants can provide evidence via affidavit, not the accused.
Section 145(2) of Act, clearly reveals that Court on receipt of application of prosecution or accused has no option but to summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to facts conta....
The court reinforced that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused must file a specific application to recall a witness for cross-examination, failing which the trial can proceed without such....
Accused facing trial in a complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not competent to tender their evidence through affidavit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.