Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mandvi Co-Op. Bank Ltd. VS Nimesh B. Thakore...
Checking relevance for K. S. Joseph VS Philips Carbon Black Ltd. ...
K. S. Joseph VS Philips Carbon Black Ltd. - 2016 4 Supreme 602 : In view of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is entitled to give evidence on affidavit, and such affidavit is admissible in any enquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The requirement of examining the complainant on solemn affirmation under Section 200 CrPC has been done away with by Section 145. Therefore, taking cognizance without examining the complainant on solemn affirmation does not constitute an infirmity if evidence is given on affidavit. The affidavit filed by the complainant is perfectly valid and cannot be disregarded on procedural technicalities, as procedural formalities cannot override the substantive provisions of Section 145 of the NI Act.Checking relevance for A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra...
A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705 : The legal documents confirm that the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is perfectly valid and can be relied upon by the Magistrate for issuing process under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The documents explicitly state that it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant, and that the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present nor to examine the complainant or witness upon oath. This confirms that procedural technicalities do not override the substantive validity of the affidavit, and that the affidavit is a sufficient basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.Checking relevance for J. V. Baharuni VS State of Gujarat...
J. V. Baharuni VS State of Gujarat - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1024 : The legal document confirms that procedural technicalities cannot override the substantive provisions of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It explicitly states that the accused has the absolute and unqualified right under Section 145(2) to have the complainant and any witnesses summoned for cross-examination, and that the evidence of the complainant can be given on affidavit, which is valid even in the absence of the accused. The Court further observes that the claim by the accused to demand re-deposition of witnesses whose evidence was given on affidavit would amount to a demand for meaningless duplication aimed at delaying the trial, thereby affirming the validity of affidavit evidence under Section 145 and the primacy of substantive provisions over procedural technicalities.Checking relevance for Virendra Kumar Sharma VS State of U. P. ...
Virendra Kumar Sharma VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1181 : Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit, which shall be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. The court held that for summoning of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is not required. The Supreme Court has held that even on the basis of an affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, an accused can be summoned under Section 138, and there is no need to record statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, procedural technicalities cannot override the substantive provisions of Section 145 of the NI Act, and the affidavit filed by the complainant is perfectly valid.Checking relevance for Ram Ratan Singh Bisht VS State of Uttarakhand...
Checking relevance for Viral Enterprises VS State of Maharashtra...
Viral Enterprises VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 515 : The court held that 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 omission of the term ''''accused'''' in Section 145 was intentional, reflecting legislative intent to expedite trials by restricting affidavit evidence to the complainant. The Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Nimesh B. Thakore confirmed that the complainant''''s affidavit is valid and that the accused cannot rely on affidavit evidence, as doing so would amount to judicial overreach. The procedural provisions of Section 145 cannot override the substantive legislative intent, and the validity of the complainant''''s affidavit is not affected by the accused''''s inability to use affidavits.
