Miller, J.

1. It was held by Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., in the Criminal Revision Case No. 453 of 1894 In re Singiri Eradu II Weir 435 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.

2. But in the present case the person convicted 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 this document. There is, no doubt, direct authority in this Court for this 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 in the case of Kamatchinathan Chetty v. King-Emperor 28 M. 308 : 2 Cri. L.J. 756. But that decision seems to be in part based on the reasoning that the presence of the Judge and Vakils at the