JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed, under Section 438/440 of BNSS, 2023, filed assailing the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon in Criminal Revision No. 26/2024 in connection with N.I. Case No. 21/2019, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the revision petition was found devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed on contest. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection in filing of the instant application, stating that this petition has been filed under the guise of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, though actually the application is in the nature of second criminal revision petition, which is not permissible under the law. 4. Responding to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a palpable error in the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam and therefore, the instant petition is maintainable under the law. 5. In support of his argument, he has referred to the case of Rajani Goswami Vs. Anil Chandra Haloi , reported in 2009 0 Supreme (Gau) 555 . In the aforesaid case, this Court had relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Krishnan and Another Vs. Krishnaveni and Another , reported in (1997) 4 SCC 24 , which held that though, it is clear that second criminal revision petition by the same petitioner, is barred by Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., but the same petitioner is not barred from approaching the High Court for correcting palpable errors committed by the Court below in passing the orders and thereby, resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner, by invoking supervisory and plenary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 read with Section 483 and 401 of Cr.P.C., over the proceedings and the order of the subordinate Court. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was followed by this Court in the aforesaid case of Rajani Goswami (supra) , this Court is of the opinion that the instant petition can be entertained by this Court, if there are allegations of palpable errors committed by the Court below which can be corrected by this Court. 7. As far as the instant case is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 had filed a case under NI Act against the petitioner wherein, the Trial Court had taken cognizance under Section 138 of NI Act and thereafter, issued summon to the petitioner for appearance. On receipt of the said summon, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and accordingly, the trial proceeded. That on 29.04.2023, the petitioner submitted evidence (Examination-in-chief) of DW-1 in the form of affidavit and the copy of the same was furnished to the complainant i.e., the respondent no. 1 and accordingly, fixed for further DWs. It is also the case of the petitioner that again on 27.06.2023, the accused submitted evidence of DW-2 in the form of affidavit and the copy of the same was also furnished to the respondent no. 1. However, on 08.01.2024, when the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the DWs, the complainant rather than cross- examining the DWs, raised objection and submitted that in a NI case, evidence of DWs could be recorded only orally and evidence by way of affidavit is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had prayed for issuance of direction to adduce evidence orally. After hearing the parties on 14.05.2025, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an order whereby, the evidence, in the form of affidavit submitted by the accused i.e., the petitioner, was expunged/rejected from the record. However, liberty was given to adduce oral evidence to the DWs on the next date. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, filed a revision petition against the order dated 14.05.2024, which was rejected, vide Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2025 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam. The instant revision petition has been filed, assailing the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2025. 8. Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court i.e. the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam. The instant revision petition has been filed, assailing the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2025. 8. Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court i.e. the Addl. CJM, Nagaon, failed to apply his judicious mind in passing the order dated 14.05.2024. As on 29.04.2023, DW-1 had submitted the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and on 26.07.2023, the examination-in- chief was submitted by the DW-2 and the same were accepted by the learned Trial Court below and the copies of the same were also duly furnished to the counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, without raising any objection. The learned counsel submits that after lapse of considerable time without any order being passed by the learned Trial Court, suddenly on 08.01.2024, the counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 raised objection that in a NI case, the accused has to be give evidence orally. 9. Upon such objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, the learned Trial Court has, in fact, reviewed his own order of fixing the date for cross-examination of the DWs on 08.01.2024, whereby, the learned Trial court had rejected the evidences by way of affidavit of DW-1 and DW-2. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that this is not allowed under the law as the learned Trial Court has reviewed his own order without any application being filed by the respondent no. 1. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam, had committed gross error in considering the ratio laid down in the case of Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh Thakore , reported in (2010) 3 SCC 83 , while not considering the ratio laid down in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 . The learned counsel submits that the ratio laid down in the Indian Bank Association (supra), is to the aspect that the accused also has the right to lead his evidence on affidavit, therefore, he submits that a gross palpable error has been committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam in discarding the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Indian Bank Association (supra) and thereby, rejecting the evidence submitted by way of affidavits by DW-1 and DW-2. 10. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam in discarding the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Indian Bank Association (supra) and thereby, rejecting the evidence submitted by way of affidavits by DW-1 and DW-2. 10. Per contra, Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that in catena of cases, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court has held consistently that, as per the provisions of Section 145(2) of the NI Act, the accused is not allowed to submit the evidence of DWs by way of affidavit. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the case which has already been referred by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon, i.e. the case of Mandvi Co- operative Bank Ltd. (supra) . The learned counsel submits that in the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had clearly laid down that though Section 145(1) confers a right on the complainant to give evidence on affidavit, a similar right has not been conferred on the accused. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the legislature, in their wisdom, may not have thought it proper to incorporate the word “accused” with the word “complainant” in sub-section (1) of Section 145, in view of immunity conferred on the accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 further submits that in the case of Rajni Dhingra Vs. Sanjeev Chugh , reported in 2019 SCC OnLine P & H 2464 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, following the ratio laid down in Mandvi Co- operative Bank Ltd. (supra), held that the petitioner, being an accused, who is facing trial in complaints under NI Act, is not competent to tender his evidence through affidavit. Therefore, he submits that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error while declining permission to adduce evidence by way of affidavit to the petitioner. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has referred to many decisions of the other Hon’ble High Courts, wherein, the Hon’ble High Courts have come to similar findings, following the case of Mandvi Co- operative Bank Ltd. (supra). 12. In a recent case, i.e. Roopa B.R. Vs. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has referred to many decisions of the other Hon’ble High Courts, wherein, the Hon’ble High Courts have come to similar findings, following the case of Mandvi Co- operative Bank Ltd. (supra). 12. In a recent case, i.e. Roopa B.R. Vs. Thimmegowda , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 12943 , the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had also come to the same finding, following the ratio laid down in the case of Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra). 13. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the case of Indian Bank Association (supra) has, in fact, not specifically dealt with nor any arguments were advanced to the issue whether, the accused is allowed to adduce evidence on affidavit under Section 145 of the NI Act or not. In fact, in the aforesaid case of the Indian Bank Association (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines in disposal of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court been concerned with the time consumed in such cases under NI Act, has directed as follows: - “ 23.5. The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses instead of examining them in the Court. The witnesses to the complaint and the accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court.” 14. In view of the aforesaid observation, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that there is no clear direction from the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), that the accused is allowed to give evidence by way of affidavit in a case under the NI Act. 15. This Court has gone through the Trial Court Record that has been requisitioned for adjudication of the instant case. This Court has also heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 16. It is seen from the record that though the copies of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 were submitted before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had, in fact, posted a date for cross-examination of the DWs, the cross-examination of the DWs were yet to be started. 16. It is seen from the record that though the copies of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 were submitted before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had, in fact, posted a date for cross-examination of the DWs, the cross-examination of the DWs were yet to be started. Therefore, it is seen that when an objection was raised on the basis of the statutory provision and on the basis of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Trial Court had rejected those evidences submitted by way of affidavits and directed the accused/petitioner to adduce the evidence orally. 17. In consideration of the factual matrix and the stage of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice, as such, has been caused to the accused/petitioner, vide the order of the learned Trial Court, directing the accused/petitioner to submit the evidence of the DW-1 and DW-2 orally, due to the fact that the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 were yet to be started. The accused/petitioner, in fact, had the liberty to submit the evidence of the DW-1 and DW-2 orally and the right remained intact for them, in spite of rejection of the affidavits of the DW-1 and DW-2 by the learned Trial Court. 18. This Court has also gone through the ratios laid down in the cases of Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) and Indian Bank Association (supra). After going through the case laws, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) , has not been changed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra) . In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court had stressed on the fact that since the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, are of summary in nature, felt the importance to provide certain directions so that the cases can be heard and completed by the learned Trial court in a reasonable time. In terms of the aforesaid, certain directions have been given by Hon’ble Apex Court for the Trial Courts in disposal of the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. In terms of the aforesaid, certain directions have been given by Hon’ble Apex Court for the Trial Courts in disposal of the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. This court could not find any observation or direction to the effect that the ratio laid down in the case of Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) , has been negated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court had only opined that Court has the option for accepting affidavits of witnesses instead of examining them in the Court, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court did not mention that the accused is also allowed to submit his/her evidence or the evidence of any DWs by way of affidavits. 19. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the instant revision petition lacks merit and therefore, this Court do not find any justification to set aside and quash the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26/2024. 20. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is disposed of as dismissed.