JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act), complainant, herein respondent, tendered his evidence through affidavits before the trial Magistrate. Objection in this regard was raised on behalf of the accused, herein petitioner. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner, precisely, was that even though Section 145 of the Act permits evidence through affidavits, but the said Section excludes application of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (for short the Central Code) and not that of the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code (for short the State Code) so in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the evidence in a complaint under section 138 of the Act is to be adduced in accordance with the State Code and not in accordance with Section 145 of the Act. In rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner (accused), learned trial Magistrate referred to Section 1 (2)(a) of the State Code, which saves the application of any special or local law in force. 2. While not feeling it necessary to differ with the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate, I would rather add by saying that, whereas Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the State Code provides that investigation of, inquiry into and trial for all offences under the Ranbir Penal Code shall be governed by the provisions of the State Code, Sub-section (2) excludes the general application of the State Code to investigation of, inquiry into and trial of offences under any other (special) enactment, in which case the State Code applies subject to such other enactment. Here as per Section 145(1) of the Act, evidence of the complainant in trial for an offence under section 138 may be given by him on affidavits, which in turn overrides all the provisions of the State Code relating to leading of complainant’s evidence in a trial arising on a private complaint. It being so, no question relating to exclusion of Central Code or State Code, as was raised before the learned trial Magistrate, should arise in view of sub section (2) of the section 5 of the State Code. This clear and fundamental legal position should have been kept in mind by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while raising the objection before the trial Magistrate. 3. This clear and fundamental legal position should have been kept in mind by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while raising the objection before the trial Magistrate. 3. Viewed thus, raising of the objection on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court was misconceived and likewise this revision petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/ payable by the petitioner (accused) to the respondent (complainant) before the trial court. 4. Record of the trial court be remitted back along with a copy of this order. Since the trial is to resume after about a decade, it is expected that the trial court shall proceed more expeditiously.