1.0 As common question of law and facts arise in all these Criminal Revision Applications and are between the same parties, all these Criminal Revision Applications are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
2.0 Criminal Revision Application No.471 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2465 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.1. Criminal Revision Application No.472 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2466 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.2. Criminal Revision Application No.473 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2467 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.3. Criminal Revision Application No.474 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2468 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.4. Criminal Revision Application No.475 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2469 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.5. Criminal Revision Application No.476 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2471 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.6. Criminal Revision Application No.477 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2472 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2.7. Criminal Revision Application No.478 of 2010 has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.2473 of 2005, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and directed the applicant to undergo sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months S.I and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2009, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3.0 That the original complainantrespondent no.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the “complainant”) in respective Criminal Revision Applications filed respective Criminal Cases/ complaints against the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the “original accused”) with respect to the different cheques issued by the original accused for different transaction which all came to be dishonoured by the concerned bank with an endorsement “insufficient fund”. It was the case on behalf of the original complainant that the said cheques have been issued by the original accused for the goods supplied and when the same came to be deposited in the bank, it was returned with an endorsement “fund insufficient”. It was also the case on behalf of the original complainant that within stipulated time the complainant issued statutory notice by RPAD which came to be refused by the accused.
Simultaneously, statutory notices were sent through UPC, which came to be served upon the accused. It was further submitted that despite the service of statutory notice neither there was any reply nor the cheques amount were paid and hence the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and therefore, it was requested to hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently punish them. That on service of of summons, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and their plea was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3.1. To prove the case against the accused, the complainant himself came to be examined and he was also thoroughly cross examined. That thereafter, on closing of the evidence on behalf of the complainant further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused did not led any evidence. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in all the cases and imposed the sentence of one year S.I with fine of Rs.8000/ and in default to undergo two months SI and also directed the accused to pay compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court passed in respective Criminal Case Nos. 2465 to 2469 of 2005 and 2471 to 2473 of 2005 , the petitioner original accused preferred Criminal Appeals before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana being Criminal Appeal Nos. 130 to 137 of 2009 and learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said appeals confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
3.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below in respective Criminal Complaints and the Criminal Appeals holding the petitioner original accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the petitioner original accused has preferred Criminal Revision Applications under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.0 Shri C.B. Upadhyay, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original accused. Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the original accused has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3076 in support of his prayer to remand the matter to the learned Magistrate and to direct the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the trial afresh from the stage of recording plea. It is submitted by Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the original accused that in the facts of the present case the plea has been recorded by one Magistrate and thereafter the learned Magistrate who recorded plea came to be transferred and the subsequent Magistrate proceeded further with the trial considering the plea recorded by the earlier Magistrate and recorded the evidence and passed final order which is not permissible. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah (supra), it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below and remand the matter to the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the trials denovo even from the stage of recording the plea.
4.1. Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the original accused has heavily relied upon the provisions of Section 251 to 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that even the fresh plea is to be recorded by the transferee Magistrate before whom the case is transferred. It is submitted that as provided under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate has to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make and as provided under Section 252 if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate is required to record the plea in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. It is submitted that if the accused does not plead guilty and the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or Section 253, the concerned Magistrate shall proceed to hear prosecution and take all such evidence that may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and to take such evidence as he produces in his defence. It is submitted that, therefore, the power to record the plea and evidence flows from Section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, subsequent Magistrate has to proceed further with the trial from that stage i.e. recording of the plea inclusive of recording of the evidence. Therefore, it is requested to allow all the Criminal Revision Applications by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below and to direct the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the trial de novo from stage of even recording of plea.
4.2. Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the original accused has further submitted that even the original complainant has failed to prove any legal debt or liability with respect to the cheques in question which are dishonoured and therefore, both the Courts below have materially erred in holding the accused guilty for the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently convicting the original accused. No other submissions have been made. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow all the Criminal Revision Applications.
5.0 All these Criminal Revision Applications are opposed by Shri Mehual Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the original complainant. It is submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah(supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was found that the case was tried as summary trial and the substance of the evidence was recorded by one Magistrate and relying upon the same subsequent transferee Judge/ Magistrate proceeded further with the trial and passed order of conviction and considering Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that subsequent transferee Magistrate could not have relied upon the substance of evidence recorded by the earlier Magistrate. It is submitted that in present case only the plea was recorded by the earlier Magistrate and the entire evidence of substantial/ evidence has been recorded by the subsequent transferee Magistrate on the basis of which order of conviction has been passed. Therefore, it is submitted that the aforesaid decision would not be applicable at all. It is further submitted that under Section 143 of the N.I. Act all the cases for the offences under the N.I. Act are to be tried as summary trial unless any specific order has been passed by the Magistrate as provided under the proviso to Section 143 of the N.I. Act and that too after giving an opportunity to both the parties that for the reasons to be recorded the case is not to be tried as summary trial but as summons trial. It is therefore, submitted that as such provisions of Sections 251 to 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable in case of summary trial. It is submitted that in any case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision considered recording of evidence by one Magistrate and relying upon the same the subsequent transferee Magistrate proceeded further with the trial and therefore, the subsequent Magistrate was not required to even record the afresh plea as contended on behalf of the learned advocate for the original accused.
5.1. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate for the original complainant that as such the cheques have been issued by the accused and neither issuance of cheques nor signature on the same have been disputed by the accused. It is submitted that even there was no reply to the statutory notice denying the liability and / or issuance of cheque. Therefore, as such no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act convicting the accused.
5.2. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate for the original complainant that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is submitted that as such the original accused is habitual offender and in other cases also he has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and though there is no stay he has not surrendered and in fact he has absconded. Therefore, it is requested not to exercise revisional power in favour of such person who has absconded. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss all the Criminal Revision Applications.
6. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the original complainant and has requested to dismiss all the revisions applications.
7.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and perused and considered both the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court passed in respective Criminal Cases as well as Criminal Appeals. This Court has also perused the entire evidence on record from the Record and Proceedings received from the learned trial Court.
8.0 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding the applicant hereinoriginal accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in respective Criminal Cases and thereby convicting the original accused. The findings given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence and as it is found that all the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are satisfied the accused has been held guilty for the said offence. It is required to be noted that as such the accused did not reply to the statutory notice and thereby neither disputed the liability under the disputed cheques in question nor disputed that the cheques have not been issued by him nor disputed the signature on the cheques. Even on receipt of the statutory notice, he has not made the payment towards the cheques in question which have been dishonoured / returned by the concerned Bank with an endorsement “fund insufficient”. Under the circumstances, as such no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently convicting him for the said offences.
9.0 The main submission on behalf of the original accused is to remand the matter to the learned Magistrate with a directions to the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the trial de novo that too from the stage of recording of plea. It is the case of the applicantoriginal accused that as the plea was recorded by the earlier Magistrate and thereafter the subsequent Magistrate proceeded further with the trial relying upon the said plea, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah (supra) the same is not permissible and therefore, judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court deserve to be quashed and set aside and to remand the matter to the learned trial Court to proceed further with trial afresh de novo from the stage of recording of the plea. Aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As such in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah(supra) would not be applicable at all. In the present case as stated above, only the plea was recorded by the earlier Magistrate and thereafter the subsequent transferee Magistrate proceeded further with the trial and has recorded substance of evidence/evidence and thereafter on appreciation of the same has passed the final order. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah (supra) it was found that the subsequent learned Magistrate who passed final order did not record the evidence/ substance of evidence and as such relied upon or considered the substance of evidence / evidence recorded by the earlier Magistrate and it was case of summary trial and therefore, considering Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure more particularly exception to Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and more particularly with respect to summary trial and the question which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether in summary trial the subsequent Magistrate could have relied upon the substance of evidence / evidence recorded by the earlier Magistrate while passing final order ? To that considering Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in summary trial it is not permissible. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider whether the subsequent transferee Magistrate is required to record the plea afresh and / or subsequent Magistrate could not have proceeded further with the trial on the basis of plea recorded by the earlier learned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, as such decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, aforesaid decision would not be of any assistance to the applicant original accused.
10.0 Now, so far as reliance placed upon Sections 251 to 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the same would not be applicable in a summary trial. The aforesaid provision would be applicable with respect to the summons trial. It is required to be noted at this stage that as per Section 143 of the N.I. Act, all the cases under the Act are to be tried as summary trial and the procedure as required under Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed as far as possible. However, as provided under the proviso to section 143 of the N.I. Act the learned Magistrate either at the commencement of the trial or during the trial can pass the order to try the case as summons triable. However, for that the learned Magistrate is required to pass reasoned order and that too after giving an opportunity to both the sides. Under the circumstances, unless and until any specific order is passed by the learned Magistrate as provided under proviso to Section 143 of the N.I. Act to treat the trial as summons trial and all the cases under the N.I. Act are to be treated as summary trial only and that is the statutory requirement. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the accused that the subsequent Magistrate has to proceed further with the trial from the stage of recording the plea has no substance and cannot be accepted.
11. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the accused that there was no legal debt or liability and / or complainant has not proved that there was any legal debt or liability with respect to the cheques in question is concerned, it is to be noted that as such the accused has not disputed the signature on the cheques and even has not disputed issuance of cheques. As stated above, he has not even accepted the statutory notice send though RPAD, however is served by UPC. The notices which were sent to him by RPAD were refused by him. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when all the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are satisfied, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and / or illegality in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and same is rightly confirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
12. As stated above, the original accused is habitual offender and it is reported that he has been convicted in other criminal cases also for the very offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (which is not disputed by the learned advocate for the applicant original accused) and it is reported that he has not even surrendered and he has absconded. This is mentioned with a view to show the conduct on the part of the accused.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the Criminal Revision Applications fail and same deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the Criminal Revision Applications. The bail stand canceled in each of the respective cases. Now, original accused to surrender before the concerned Court/ jail authority to undergo sentence.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )