ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 14.6.2018 passed in CC No. 949/2018 by the learned SCCH26, XXIV ASCJ & XXII ACMM, Bengaluru. The learned Trial Judge after appearance of the accused and recording his plea, has posted the case for cross examination of PW1 on the application filed u/s.145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has been proceeding with the evidence by way of affidavit and the documents marked by the respondent at the time of sworn statement itself and that should not have been done by the trial Judge and it should have insisted for fresh affidavit and marked the documents afresh after appearance of the accused before the court. 4. In this regard, Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Evidence on affidavit, is the answer to the ground raised by the learned counsel. The said provision is a special provision which says that – “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. 1973, the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.” Sub clause (2) of Section 145 of the Act says that – “The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.” 5. On plain reading of the above said provisions, it is clear that, when once an affidavit is filed by the complainant and the documents produced are got marked, and the evidence has been led by way of an affidavit, either at the time of inquiry or at the time of trial, unless it is disputed, it can be read as evidence by the court, at any stage. However, Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides an opportunity to the complainant and the accused to recall any witness who has already been examined for the purpose of further examination or for cross examination on the application filed by them. However, Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides an opportunity to the complainant and the accused to recall any witness who has already been examined for the purpose of further examination or for cross examination on the application filed by them. This has been made very much clear in a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 between Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others. At paragraphs 23.4, it is made clear as follows : “23.4. The court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross-examination.” At paragraph 23.5 of the said judgment, it has been made further clear as follows– 23.5. The court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross examination and reexamination of the complaint must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses instead of examining them in the court. The witnesses to the complaint and the accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the court. (Emphasis supplied) 6. Therefore, on a meaningful understanding of the above said provision and the decision, in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the matter, it is said that immediately after recording of the plea, unless an application is made by the accused for cross examination of the witnesses already examined, the case has to be posted for defence evidence. It goes without saying that the evidence already recorded, at the time of recording of the sworn statement by way of affidavit during inquiry can be treated as evidence by the court for the purpose of allowing the accused for cross examination, if the complainant does not want to further examine himself by way of any further affidavit or producing any further document. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 273 of Cr.P.C. strenuously contends before the Court that the proceedings of the trial Court is not in accordance with the said provisions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 273 of Cr.P.C. strenuously contends before the Court that the proceedings of the trial Court is not in accordance with the said provisions. Section 273 of Cr.P.C. says that – “Evidence to be taken in presence of accused–Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader : [Provided that where the evidence of a woman below the age of eighteen years who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual offence, is to be recorded, the court may take appropriate measures to ensure that such woman is not confronted by the accused while at the same time ensuring the right of cross examination of the accused.] Explanation. - In this section, "accused" includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The above said provision itself clearly operates with starting words ‘except or otherwise expressly provided’. That means, if any other law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provides a separate procedure, in such an eventuality, the court has to stick on to the special enactment and special provision if any. 9. In this context, Section 145(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if read conjointly as noted above, it reveals that the Act itself provides a separate procedure with regard to examination of the witnesses. Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act itself starts with a non-obstante clause that – Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the said provision i.e. Section 145 of the Act is strictly applicable. Therefore, when a special provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act, gives power to the Magistrate to record the evidence by way of an affidavit either at the time of enquiry or at the time of evidence, that affidavit itself can be treated as evidence at any stage of the proceedings either at the time of inquiry or at the time of trial, unless the complainant himself would like to lead any further evidence or produce any further document as noted above. 10. 10. It is also worth to mention here the observation made in a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560 between Meters and Instruments Private Ltd., and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta at paragraph 18.5 which reads thus : “Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank’s slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonour of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 of Cr.P.C.. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. One more contingency may arise, during enquiry when magistrate records sworn statement by way of affidavit. For any reason, if the complainant has produced any documents which are inadvertently marked by the court which are not admissible in evidence or the accused has got right to object for marking of such document, in such an eventuality, the provision itself i.e., 145(2) empowers the learned Magistrate to act upon. That is to say the court may if it thinks fit and shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon or examine any person giving evidence by way of affidavit as to the facts contained therein. Therefore, the said discretion always vests with the court to recall the witnesses for the purpose of examining the witnesses who were already examined by way of an affidavit for further evidence or for further cross examination. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. It is also to be noted that if a document is inadmissible and if it is marked before the court, the accused can raise an objection even during the course of cross examination and in such an eventuality, the court is bound to pass an appropriate order with regard to admissibility of such document though it is already marked or the court can call the witness for further examination in chief in such an eventuality and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 13. 13. Under the above said circumstances, in this particular case since no such defence has been taken by the accused, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition on merits, I.A.No.1/2018 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.