( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original complainant of Criminal Case No. 99/2001 pending in the Court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in reference to an offence committed under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (The N. I. Act for short ). The evidence of the prosecution as well as further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Crpc has been recorded and in response to the question put to the accused, the respondent accused has mentioned that he wants to enter into defence and examine himself on oath as witness. Before entering into the witness-box, in light of the provisions of Sec. 145 (2) of the N. I. Act, the accused -respondent no. 1 has applied and prayed that his evidence may be accepted by affidavit provided in the scheme of Sec. 145. After hearing the parties and mainly original complainant, ld. Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application and permitted respondent no. 1 accused to lead evidence on affidavit with a liberty to cross-examine the accused by the complainant side vide order under challenge dated 23. 10. 2003.

( 2 ) MR. S. D. BRAHMBHATT, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per the statements of object and reasons of The Negotiable Instrument (Amendment and Misc. Provisions ) Act, 2002 R/w Sec. 145 of the Act, only the complainant is conferred with the privilege of leading evidence by filing affidavit and if the accused is permitted to lead his side of evidence by affidavit, then the same will seriously prejudice the complainant and certain questions which normally could not have been permitted to be asked by the Presiding Judge, such leading or suggesting questions can be covered while appreciating the facts stated on oath in his affidavit. The order under challenge has conferred a right to an accused beyond the scope of Section 145 (1) and the intention of the legislature. These two arguments are the backbone of the present Revision Application.

( 3 ) I have gone through the order passed by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate under challenge. It is a well reasoned order and the same is in accordance with law, especially with the scheme of Sec. 145 of the N. I. Act. There is no error of law committed. It would not be legal or logical to accept the argument that if such permission is granted to the accused, it would prejudice the complainant. The statement of object and reasons reflected in para-4 are not exhaustive. This Court is supposed to look into the scheme of Sec. 145 of the N. I. Act enacted for the purpose and the statements of objects and reasons are also to be read as a whole.

( 4 ) THE N. I. Act has been amended by The Banking,public Financial Institutions And Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act,1988, wherein a new chapter XVII is incorporated for penalty in the case of dishonour of the cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. Para-4 says that keeping in view the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and other representations, it has been decided to bring out amendment for the reasons and/or objects enumerated in the said para. So, it is argued by ld. counsel Mr. Brahmbhatt that the object of Amending Act is to confer privilege on the complainant to tender evidence on affidavit and the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly/ erroneously interpreted the scheme of section 145 of the N. I. Act. The accused ought not to have been permitted to lead his evidence as witness on affidavit. Bare reading of the statement of objects and reasons reflected in para-4 are found mainly descriptive or exemplary and not exhaustive. It would be proper to quote relevant para-2 from the objects and reasons of the Amending Act;-"2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to rev