1.00. Present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 dtd.16/4/2009, by which the petitioner - original accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month and further directed the petitioner - original accused to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the original complainant, towards compensation under section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner herein – original accused has also challenged the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2009 dtd.13/10/2010, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and Order passed by the learned trial court. 2.00. That the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant filed Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 against the petitioner herein – original accused in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- dtd.5/2/2004 drawn on Sarvodaya Commercial Cooperative Bank Limited, Mehsana Branch. It was the case on behalf of the complainant that when the said cheque was deposited, the same came to be dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient fund” and thereafter the complainant issued and served statutory notices dtd.12/2/2004 by RP AD as well as UPC and though the notices came to be served, the amount under the cheque in question was not paid and therefore, the respondent No.2 – original complainant filed the aforesaid complaint and requested to convict the petitioner – original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.01. That plea of the accused came to be recorded and he pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried.
2.02. Thereafter the complainant led evidence and thereafter Further Statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque and imposed punishment of Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
2.03. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana, in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 dtd.16/4/2009 petitioner herein – original accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana and the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, by the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.13/10/2010 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
2.04. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement and Orders passed by both the courts below, petitioner herein – original accused has preferred present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.00. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused has vehemently submitted that in the present case, plea and evidence has been recorded by one learned Magistrate and thereafter the case was transferred to another learned Magistrate and the successor Magistrate has relied upon the evidence recorded by the earlier Magistrate and proceeded further with the trial placing reliance on evidence recorded by his predecessor, which is not permissible in view of provisions of section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cae of Nitin Saevantilal Shah Versus Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 638.
By making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra), it is requested to allow the present Revision Application and quash and set aside the Judgement and Orders passed by both the courts below and remand the matter to the learned trial court with a direction to try the case denovo.
4.00. Present Revision Application is opposed by Mr.Y.M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has vehemently submitted that in the present case and considering the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate of recording the entire evidence, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) would not be applicable.
4.01. Mr.Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant has further submitted that in the present case the learned Magistrate has proceeded further with the trial and/or conducted trial as a Summons Trial and has recorded entire evidence and even has passed the impugned order under section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, not treated the case as a Summary Trial and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) would not be applicable.
4.02. In support of his above submission, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jaikishan Kanjiwani S/o. Premchand Kanjwani Versus M/s Kumar Matching Centre, Jaripatka, reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal 134 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc.Application No. 6500 of 2012.
4.03. Relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jaikishan Kanjiwani S/o. Premchand Kanjwani (supra), it is submitted that even if the learned Magistrate has not passed any specific order as provided under Proviso to section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and still the learned trial court has proceeded further with the trial as Summons Trial by recording entire evidence and therefore, section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable and subsequent Magistrate can still proceed further with the trial from the stage at which his learned Predecessor has left and even can rely upon the evidence recorded by his Predecessor.
By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Revision Application.
5.00. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgement and orders passed by both the courts below.
6.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in the present case admittedly the impugned Judgement and Order has been passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the petitioner herein – original accused relying upon and considering the evidence recorded by the earlier Magistrate. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra), it is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as the trial for the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be tried as a summary trial, the successor Magistrate has no authority to proceed with the trial from the stage at which his predecessor has left and the successor Magistrate was required to proceed further with the trial de novo and therefore, the learned Magistrate who has passed the final order, has committed an a material irregularity which has caused prejudice to the accused and therefore, the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Successor Magistrate relying upon the evidence and/or considering the evidence recorded by the predecessor Magistrate, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
However, on the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the complainant that in the present case as the learned predecessor Magistrate has recorded the entire evidence as if the trial is conducted as a summons trial and even has passed the final order treating the trial as a summons trial and therefore, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) would not be applicable.
The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the original complainant seems to be attractive but in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra), the same cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, considering section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that as per section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all offences under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate as summary trial and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the said Code shall apply to such trials.
Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act further provides that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees. It further provides that when at the commencement of, or in the course of a summary trial under section 143, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, considering section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act all the offences under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act are to be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), and/or Metropolitan Magistrate as a summary trial only and the learned learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), and/or Metropolitan Magistrate can impose sentence for a term not exceeding one year and amount of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees. However, the learned Magistrate may proceed further with the trial for the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act as a summons trial and deviate from proceeding further with the trial as a summary trial considering proviso to section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, for that either at the commencement of, or in the course of. a summary trial, the Magistrate may decide to proceed further with the trial as a summons trial, however, for that he has to hear the parties to the complaint and record a specific order to that effect.
Therefore, unless and until after hearing the parties to the complaint a specific order is passed by the learned Magistrate and/or Metropolitan Magistrate not to proceed further with the trial as summary trial, all the trials for the offences under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be and to be tried as summary trial only. Merely because the learned predecessor Magistrate has recorded entire evidence and/or proceeded further with the trial as if it is summary trial, unless a specific order to that effect is passed, after hearing the parties, as provided under proviso to section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, trial for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not become summons trial automatically. As stated hereinabove, under the statute under section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act all the offences under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, more particularly offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate as summary trial. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra), section 262 of the CRPC lays down procedure for summary trial and sub-section(1) thereof inter- alia prescribes that in summary trials, procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of summons case shall be followed, however, subject to condition that no sentence for imprisonment for a term exceeding three months is passed in case, of any convict in under this Chapter. Under the circumstances, even if the learned predecessor Magistrate has recorded the entire evidence, still, trial for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be tried and/or conducted as summary trial only and therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) shall be applicable in full force.
6.04. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) and it is specifically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in summary proceedings for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, successor Judge or the Magistrate has no authority to proceed further with the trial from the stage at which his predecessor has left and provisions of section 326(1) and 326(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable to the summary trial and therefore, successor Magistrate cannot proceed further with the trial placing reliance on evidence recorded by his predecessor Magistrate and is bound to try the case denovo.
This Court has also considered even the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Nitinbhai Sevantilal Shah and another Versus Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal, rendered in Criminal Revision Application No.529 of 2003, reported in 2010 JX Gujarat 363 against which the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered the judgement in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra) and considering the facts narrated in the said decision, it appears that even in the said case also the learned predecessor Magistrate recorded the entire evidence and the successor Magistrate proceeded further with the trial relying upon the evidence recorded by the predecessor Magistrate and in that case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the same is not permissible. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jaikishan Kanjiwani S/o. Premchand Kanjwani (supra), relied by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant shall not be of any assistance to him in view of the aforesaid binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Saevantilal Shah (supra).
6.06. Under the circumstances this Court has no other alternative but to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrates, confirmed by the learned appellate court and to remand the matter to the Magistrate to proceed further with the trial de novo.
7.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Revision Application succeeds and the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 dtd.16/4/2009 convicting the petitioner – original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2009 dtd.13/10/2010, are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana for retrial in accordance with law.
The petitioner herein – original accused is hereby directed to remain present before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana as and when required and summoned, without fail and if the petitioner herein fails to remain present before the learned learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana, it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take necessary steps including issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrant, for securing his presence.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana is hereby directed to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order and the petitioner herein – original accused is hereby directed to remain present before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana at the first instance on 5th November, 2012 without fail, so that the learned Magistrate can fix next date. All the concerned are hereby directed to cooperate the learned Magistrate in disposal of the trial within the stipulated time as aforesaid.
Registry is hereby directed to return Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned trial court forthwith but in any case before 24th November, 2012 without fail.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik