In Percy Fernandes v. Smt. Anita Patrao[1], the Supreme Court held that when a complaint is made by a Court, it is not necessary for a Magistrate to examine the complainant and that neither Section 200 nor Section 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against the person complained against. Of course, same does not hold good in case of complaints filed for other offences. However, in a noted case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited vs Nimesh B. Thakore[2], the Apex Court had laid down that the Court cannot act upon an affidavit in lieu of an oral evidence because such an acceptance stands contrary to the provisions under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 145(1) mandates the oral examination of the complainant and the court had also relied upon previous pronouncements to lay down such a decision. This decision was further accepted in Karuna Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.[3] Even in B K Prabhushankar vs Deepak G Ankolekar[4], it was held that an affidavit in lieu of oral evidence is not admissible and the case was remanded back to the lower courts for reconsideration on the oral evidence.

Ultimately, in a very recent judgment of Indian Bank Assoiciation and Ors. v. Union of India  and Ors.[5], The Court held that even though the legislature in their wisdom did not deem it proper to incorporate a word "accused"• with the word "complainant"• in Section 145(1), it does not mean that the Magistrate could not allow the complainant to give his evidence on affidavit, unless there was just and reasonable ground to refuse such permission.

Therefore, as per the present scenario, affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence or evidence in person can be considered to be admissible as per the compliance with the provision laid down under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.