V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 12/1/1986 by Shri S. B. Verma, the then lind Additional Sessions Judge, Jumper who was disposing of the Criminal revision No. 231 of 1984. This revision, was preferred before the learned Judge, by China Main and three others against the judgment and order passed on 14/11/1984 by Mr. S. N. Pandey, the then Sub-Divisional Officer Shagging in Criminal case No. 51/16 purporting to be under section 145 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge directed the remand of the case by allowing the revision and he also issued a direction to the learned Magistrate to mate a fresh decision of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the discussions made in his judgment. ( 3 ) THE only point that was agitated before this Court was that the learned Sessions Judge, was not justified in holding that the affidavit upon which reliance was placed by the learned Magistrate, was no evidence and since it has been considered, it will have to be presumed that the judgment has been effected atleast to some extent on account of this affidavit. The learned counsel who argued this revision before me drew my attention to the provisions of section 3 of the Evidence Act where evidence has been defined, all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses shall be included in the term evidence and will be deemed to be oral evidence. ( 4 ) THE basic concept is that only such statements shall be deemed to be evidence which are made before the Court. Affidavits are not included. The un-amended section 145 Cr. P. C. , as it stood prior to the amendment of 1973, did mention affidavit and evidence both, but in the amended provisions of 1973, affidavit was deleted. This will immediately show the intention of the legislature; they did not want affidavits to be accepted as evidence. ( 5 ) THERE is also another aspect of the matter to be considered. The affidavit on the record was of one Nicked. An application was moved by the first-party to cross-examine this witness with regard to his giving this affidavit. This application was disallowed. Naturally the affidavit ceased to be effective because no opportunity to cross-examine the witness was allowed. The affidavit on the record was of one Nicked. An application was moved by the first-party to cross-examine this witness with regard to his giving this affidavit. This application was disallowed. Naturally the affidavit ceased to be effective because no opportunity to cross-examine the witness was allowed. The learned, Sessions Judge was therefore justified in directing that this affidavit be ignored and also in coming to the conclusion that howsoever little it might be it has definitely effected the result of the case. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned lind Addi. Sessions Judge, Jumper dated 12/9/1986 is perfectly justified and cannot be interfered with. The revision stands dismissed. The stay order dated 30/10/1986 staying the operation of the order dated 12/9/1986 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge shall stand vacated and the record shall go back forthwith to the Magistrate concerned who shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. .