1 The Criminal revision is filed by the accused against the order made in Crl. M.P. No. 3434 of 2007 in C.C. No. 126 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II Sankari.

2 The petition is filed by the accused under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, to permit the evidence in chief of defence side witnesses to be given in the form of affidavit. The trial Court dismissed the petition, by relying upon the learned Single Judge judgment of our High Court in V. Thanaiya v. M. Balasamy Nadar, LNIND 2005 BMM 11 : (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 324 (Mad) wherein our High Court held that the legislature in its dictum had thought it fit not to treat the complainant and the accused on par in the matter of giving evidence in the form of affidavit, and where the complainant in the complaint under Proviso (2) to Section 145 N.I. Act entitled to adduce evidence on affidavit, the accused cannot claim the similar benefit. However, the learned Single Judge judgment of our High Court in V. Thanaiya v. M. Balasamy Nadar (supra), is not accepted by another learned Single Judge in P. Janakumar v. G. Pandiyaraj, and the issue as to whether accused has the right to let in evidence by filing an affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I. Act, was referred before the Division Bench. The Division Bench in the judgment in 2009 (1) CTC 763 [LQ/MadHC/2008/4333] , while disposing of the issue has made detailed judicial assessment in this regard and referred to various judgments rendered by Apex Court and High Court Division Bench in 1) KSL & Industries Ltd. v. Mannalal Khandelwal, 2005 Crl. L.J.1201, 2) Peacock Industries Ltd. v. Budhrani Finance Ltd., 2007 (1) Crimes, 271, 3) Shreenath v. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827 [LQ/SC/1998/452] : (1998) 4 SCC 543 [LQ/SC/1998/452] : LNIND 1998 SC 435, 4) NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1952 [LQ/SC/1999/487] : 1999 SCC (Cr) 524, 5) M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107 [LQ/SC/1960/260] : LNIND 1960 SC 260 6) Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, AIR 1994 SC 1775 [LQ/SC/1994/138] : 1994 SCC (Cr) 785 : LNIND 1994 SC 134 and 7) Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 3214 [LQ/SC/2000/1484] : 2001 SCC (Cr) 87 : LNIND 2000 SC 1338, dealing with very many procedural aspects and was pleased to observe the law laid down in V. Thanaiya v. M. Balasamy Nadar, as not correct and was pleased to hold that if Section 145(1) of the Code is to be treated as an indulgence or a privilege granted to the complainant, the right to equality requires the accused also to be given the same privilage or indulgence. Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act is introduced to reduce the time taken to complete the trial and the combined reading of Sections 145(1) and (2) would make it clear that the Parliament could not have used the words any person giving evidence in Section 145(2) if we have to limit the scope of Section 145(1) to mean complainant alone and the chief examination of the complainant and other witnesses including the accused can be furnished in the form of affidavit and any person who gives evidence on affidavit including the accused may be examined by the Court, if it thinks fit and shall be summoned to give his evidence in cross examination or reexamination, on application by the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be. The Division Bench has further observed that Section 145(2) refers to any person and this will be meaningless if we were to hold that the complainant and the complainant alone can furnish his evidence on affidavit. 2) .... Our construction must advance the object without violating the language .... this would be the interpretation that would advance the object of the Amendment Act 2002.

3 Thus applying the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that the Court shall permit the examination of all the witnesses either on the side of the complainant or the accused to be given in the form of affidavit, the order challenged in this revision is liable to be set aside.

4 In the result, the criminal revision is ordered by permitting the defence side witnesses to adduce chief examination in the form of affidavit. As the main case of the year 2007, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.