Karnataka High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Accused cannot tender defence evidence by affidavit in Section 138 proceedings.

SRI NAGARAJ P vs M/S EMERALD SUITS

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Accused cannot tender defence evidence by affidavit in Section 138 proceedings.. SRI NAGARAJ P vs M/S EMERALD SUITS. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The complainant appealed under Section 378(4) CrPC against the acquittal of the respondents in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning dishonoured cheques for ₹30,00,000.

Source reference: p. 2–3

At trial, the complainant testified as PW-1 and marked 14 documents; respondent No. 2 gave evidence as DW-1 by affidavit.

Source reference: p. 3

The trial court acquitted both accused.

Source reference: p. 3

On appeal, the complainant challenged the trial court’s acceptance of the accused’s affidavit evidence.

Source reference: p. 3–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the trial court could accept the accused’s evidence by affidavit in the Section 138 proceedings.

Source reference: p. 3–5

2. Whether the acquittal should be set aside and the matter remitted to permit the accused to give oral evidence.

Source reference: p. 4–5, 9–10
03

Law Applied

The Court considered the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Source reference: p. 2–3

Relying on Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC 83, it applied the rule that a Magistrate cannot, at the accused’s request, permit the accused to tender evidence by affidavit.

Source reference: p. 4–8

It also relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Mrs. Zaheda Inamdar v. Fatima Hassina Sayeedha, W.P. No. 3519/2024, which held that permitting an accused to file affidavit evidence was illegal and unsustainable.

Source reference: p. 4, 8
04

Reasoning

Respondent No. 2 had given evidence as DW-1 by affidavit, and the trial court accepted it.

Source reference: p. 4

Applying Mandvi Co-operative Bank, the High Court held that this procedure was impermissible.

Source reference: p. 9–10

Because the accused’s affidavit evidence had been received contrary to law, the Court set aside the acquittal and remitted the case so the accused could adduce oral evidence.

Source reference: p. 9–10

It expressly left the merits undecided.

Source reference: p. 9–10
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed, and the trial court’s acquittal dated 18 July 2022 was set aside.

The case was remitted to the trial court to provide the accused an opportunity to adduce oral evidence and then dispose of the case in accordance with law within four months from the parties’ appearance.

Source reference: p. 9–10

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 4 November 2026, without further notice.

Source reference: p. 9–10
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732

Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI NAGARAJ PvsM/S EMERALD SUITS

Karnataka High Court · September 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment