Miller, J.

1. It was held by Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., in Singiri Eradu v. Empress II Weirs Crl. Rule, 435 Crl. Rev. C No. 463 of 1894 (unreported) that procedure identical with that adopted by the Sessions Judge in the present case is materially irregular. The deposition taken in the Sessions Court was therefore irregularly taken, and it may be that a conviction based upon such evidence could not be sustained. But in the present case the person concerned is the witness who made the deposition and not the accused against whom it was made, and it has been read over to the witness admitted to be correct and signed. It is very difficult, I think, to see any good reason why this admission of the witness should not be taken to be a proof of the correctness of the document. There is no doubt direct authority in this Court for the view that a deposition not read over in the hearing of the Judge and the vakils (in a civil case) is not a deposition at all and cannot be used as evidence for any purpose [Kamatchinathan Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 308], but that decision seems to be in part based on the reasoning that the presence of the Judge and vakils at the reading is