Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
For the Respondent(s):Aastha Mehta, Deepanwita Priyanka, Aman Gupta, Advocates

The provided legal document discusses the procedural aspects related to the filing of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically under Section 138. It emphasizes that the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant can be given on affidavit, and that the order of the Magistrate cannot be invalidated solely for not examining witnesses on oath if the complaint and supporting affidavit are properly considered (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the document states that the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the allegations and evidence before issuing process, and that the sufficiency of evidence for conviction is to be determined at trial, not at the stage of issuing process (!) (!) (!) . It also clarifies that the complaint and the affidavit filed in support of the complaint are sufficient for the Magistrate to proceed, and that the Magistrate's failure to examine witnesses on oath does not invalidate the proceedings, especially since evidence may be given on affidavit (!) (!) (!) .

Importantly, the document explicitly mentions that Section 145 of the NI Act allows evidence to be given by affidavit, which speeds up the trial process, and that this provision makes the examination of witnesses on oath unnecessary at the initial stage (!) (!) .

Based on this, the legal document does not support the claim that “in the absence of a supporting affidavit filed along with the complaint, the plaint is not maintainable under the Negotiable Instruments Act.” Instead, it indicates that a complaint supported by an affidavit is sufficient for initiating proceedings, and that the absence of witnesses' examination on oath does not render the complaint non-maintainable.