JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this petition, the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.1100 of 2007 instituted upon the accusation of the respondent-accused having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.9.2012 passed on Exh. 113 by the trial Court. 3. The respondent-accused preferred said application inter alia praying for permitting him to lead his evidence in defence. By the order impugned, the said prayer was allowed with observation that the respondent accused was permitted to examine himself in defence but he was not permitted to examine any other witness, except witnesses already examined by him earlier. Furthermore, the direction was given to respondent-accused to file his evidence on affidavit or oral evidence, as desired on next date without fail. 4. Mr. Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioner, by inviting attention to the provisions of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the decision in the case of M/s. Mandvi Co.op. Bank Ltd. vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, reported in 2010 (1) DCR 177: [2010 ALLMR (Cri) 599 (S.C.)], submitted that the Apex Court therein considered provisions of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ruled that though thereunder complainant is entitled to lead his evidence by filing an affidavit, it is not permissible for accused to lead his evidence on affidavit. The learned counsel contends that in view of relevant provision and of apex court aforesaid decision thereon, the direction given by the learned Magistrate in the present case to the respondent to file his affidavit and thereby impliedly permitting him to lead his evidence in defence by way of an affidavit is not only unwarranted but legally unsustainable. 5. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent-accused, does not dispute that such a position, as canvassed, emerges out of the decision referred. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not assailing part of order permitting respondent to lead his evidence by examining himself. It is submitted that such request was not objected by petitioner at any point of time. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not assailing part of order permitting respondent to lead his evidence by examining himself. It is submitted that such request was not objected by petitioner at any point of time. However, as the matter is delayed on some other pretext and thereby spirit of Negotiable Instruments Act of expeditious disposal of cases for offence thereunder, some fetters may be put upon the respondent accused for adducing the evidence in accordance with the law in some time bound frame to achieve spirit of the act. 7. After giving thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced and controversy involved being restricted only to the extent of learned Magistrate having permitted the respondent-accused to adduce his evidence by way of an affidavit and the decision pointed out as well as the provisions to which attention is drawn, clearly indicating that such a direction could not have been given due to no such a stipulation is contained in the relevant section the relevant part of the order impugned will be required to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, for expeditious disposal of said case, the direction deserves to be given, as canvassed. 8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed to the extent of quashing and setting aside the part of order dated 27.9.2012 permitting the respondent to adduce his evidence by submitting his affidavit. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 12.8.2013. The respondent is further directed to adduce his evidence on the said date or on such date as would be fixed by trial court on said date for such a purpose. Additionally, the trial court is directed to complete the case as early as possible and in any event on or before 15.11.2013. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.