JUDGMENT:- Heard Mr. A. Sambre, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bhalerao, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short) the applicant, who is the accused in Complaint Case No.30911995 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Ner takes exception to the Order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate by which the application filed by the applicant to adduce his evidence on affidavit has been rejected with costs of Rs. 500/-. Learned Magistrate has held that there is no provision in law for the accused to lead evidence on affidavit. 3. Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") submitted that the accused is entitled to lead evidence on affidavit and there is no bar for an accused to lead his evidence under Section 315 of the Code on affidavit, In support of his submissions. Mr. Sambre relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Indraprastha Holdings Ltd. Vs. Shri. Vijay J. Shah and Anr.: 2005 ALLMR (Cri) 3007. 4. Pel' contra, Mr. Bhalerao, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P. submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the accused can lead evidence on affidavit. 5. Section 145 (2) of the Act, reads as under: - 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." 6. Learned Single Judge of this court in M/s. Indraprastha Holdings Ltd. case [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 3007] (supra) after referring to the judgment of this Court in KSL Industries Ltd Vs. Khandelwal & others: 2005(2) ALL MR (Cri) 1105 has observed in para 7 of the Judgment, as follows: - "Closer scrutiny of section 145 shows that the same is intended to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. The said provision does not in any manner affect the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. The said provision enables even the defence evidence to be led by affidavits. Thus. the said provision is purely procedural in nature. The said provision does not in any manner affect the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. The said provision enables even the defence evidence to be led by affidavits. Thus. the said provision is purely procedural in nature. In this behalf, decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court Page 1827: 11998(3) ALL MR 213 (S.C.) (Shreenalh and Another Vs. Rajesh & Ors.) is relevant. What has been held by the Apex Court is that in interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedural without eluding the justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice". The learned Single Judge has summarised the law laid down in the case of KSL Industries Ltd. us under:- "(a) The Court dealing with a complaint under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 has an option to take evidence of the witnesses on the side of the prosecution as well as evidence of the accused and the defence witnesses, if any, on affidavit. (b) If the evidence of a witness is taken on affidavit, after an application is made by the other party under sub-section (2) of section 145, it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed. (c) If an affidavit is filed under sub-section (1) of Section 145 and an Application is made under sub-section (2) of section 145 by the other party, the witnesses must be made available for cross-examination by the rival party." 7. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge in the said judgment. In terms of the said judgment even the defence evidence can be led by filing affidavit. Needless to mention that defence evidence includes the evidence of the accused himself. However, under Section 315 of the Code the accused must make request in writing if he wants to examine himself in defence. Since defence evidence can be led by filing affidavit, it is quite obvious that there is no bar for the accused to tender his evidence by affidavit. After the accused tenders his affidavit, the procedure contemplated in case where the evidence is tendered on affidavit has to be followed by learned Magistrate. Since defence evidence can be led by filing affidavit, it is quite obvious that there is no bar for the accused to tender his evidence by affidavit. After the accused tenders his affidavit, the procedure contemplated in case where the evidence is tendered on affidavit has to be followed by learned Magistrate. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is patently unsustainable and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10/11/2005 is quashed and set aside. The applicant is permitted to lead his evidence by filing affidavit. Needless to mention that after evidence by way of affidavit is tendered by the applicant, respondent no.1 will be entitled to cross-examine him. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Interim order stands vacated. The parties to appear before learned Magistrate on 4th June, 2008 at 11.00 a. m. Since the complaint is of the year 1998, learned Magistrate shall dispose of Criminal Complaint Case No.30911998 expeditiously and in any case on or before 30th August, 2008. Application allowed.