Accused can not give his evidence on affidavit in case of di

Though this  SC judgment is for the year 2010 still  very few defense advocates have appreciated its conseques.

Please preserve and stuty the implications of following two paragraphs of the citation.

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3915/2006]

M/S. MANDVI CO-OP BANK LTD. ……….Appellant

VERSUS

NIMESH B. THAKORE ……….Respondent

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)._______OF 2010

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4760/2006, 5689/2006, 1106/2007,

6442/2007, 6443/2007 and 6703/2007]

J U D G M E N T

AFTAB ALAM,

26. Mr. Ranjit Kumar next submitted that in giving evidence on affidavit,the deponent (the complainant or any of his witnesses) can introduce hearsay or irrelevant facts in evidence to which the accused could have objected if the deposition was made in court as examination-in-chief. Hence, the accused must have the right to call the complainant (or his witness giving

evidence on affidavit) into the witness box for examination-in-chief so as to get the inadmissible parts in the affidavit excluded from his evidence. Once again the submission is devoid of merit. It is noted above that the evidence given on affidavit by the complainant is “subject to all just exceptions”. This simply means that the evidence given on affidavit must be admissible and it must not include inadmissible materials such as facts not relevant to the issue or any hearsay statements. In case the complainant’s affidavits contain statements that are not admissible in evidence it is always open to the accused to point those out to the court and the court would then surely deal

with the objections in accordance with law.

27. Mr. Ranjit Kumar lastly submitted that when the complainant gives his evidence on affidavit, then the documents produced along with the affidavit(s) are not proved automatically and unless the accused admits those

documents under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the documents must be proved by oral testimony. We find no substance in this submission either and we see no reason why the affidavits should not also

contain the formal proof of the enclosed documents. In case, however, the accused raises any objections with regard to the validity or sufficiency of proof of the documents submitted along with the affidavit and if the

objections are sustained by the court it is always open to the prosecution to have the concerned witness summoned and get the lacuna in the proof of the documents corrected.