Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sukhdeo Ganeshram Tardeja, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the revisional order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati, which confirmed the order dated 20.12.2011 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati, ordering a de novo trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 24.06.2009. Evidence commenced in July 2010, and the complainant was cross-examined on 13.08.2010 and 15.10.2010. Another witness, CW2 Satyanarayan Mohanlal Chhangani, was examined on 29.11.2010 and cross-examined, after which the complainant closed his case. The statement of the accused was recorded, and the case was posted further. The petitioner argued that the trial was conducted as a summons case, not a summary trial, and that the courts below erred in applying the Supreme Court judgment in Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal (2011) 9 SCC 638, which dealt with summary trials. He relied on J. V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat (2014) 10 SCC 494 to distinguish the facts. The respondent argued that Nitinbhai was squarely applicable. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the trial was indeed conducted as a summons case with detailed cross-examination, and thus the order for de novo trial was not justified. The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - De Novo Trial - Summons Trial vs Summary Trial - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The petitioner challenged the revisional order confirming de novo trial. The court held that since the trial was conducted as a summons case with detailed cross-examination and evidence, the judgment in Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal (2011) 9 SCC 638 was not applicable. The order for de novo trial was quashed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court was justified in ordering de novo trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the trial was conducted as a summons case and not as a summary trial.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 20.12.2011 and 13.02.2014, and set aside the direction for de novo trial.
Law Points
- De novo trial not warranted when trial conducted as summons case
- not summary trial
- Distinction between summary trial and summons trial under Negotiable Instruments Act
- Application of Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal distinguished
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 198
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.170/2015
Mr. S. S. Alaspurkar for petitioner, Mr. N. M. Shukla for respondent no.1, Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent no.2 State
Shri Sukhdeo Ganeshram Tardeja
Shri Rajesh Dayaram Sadhwani, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging revisional order confirming de novo trial in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the revisional order dated 13.02.2014 and the magistrate's order dated 20.12.2011 ordering de novo trial.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the order for de novo trial on the ground that the trial was conducted as a summons case, not a summary trial, and the judgment in Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal was not applicable.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati ordered de novo trial on 20.12.2011; Sessions Judge, Amravati confirmed that order on 13.02.2014.
Issues
Whether the revisional court was justified in ordering de novo trial when the trial was conducted as a summons case and not as a summary trial.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial was conducted as a summons case with detailed cross-examination, and the judgment in Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal was not applicable; relied on J. V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat.
Respondent argued that Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal was squarely applicable.
Ratio Decidendi
When a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is conducted as a summons case with detailed cross-examination and evidence, it is not a summary trial, and the judgment in Nitinbhai Saeed Ahmad v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal (which dealt with summary trials) does not apply. Therefore, ordering de novo trial is not justified.
Judgment Excerpts
He submitted that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the Court on 24.06.2009.
The courts below erred in ordering de novo trial by applying judgment in the case of Nitinbhai (supra).
Procedural History
Complaint filed on 24.06.2009; evidence recorded in July 2010; cross-examination on 13.08.2010 and 15.10.2010; CW2 examined on 29.11.2010; complainant closed case; statement of accused recorded; Magistrate ordered de novo trial on 20.12.2011; Sessions Judge confirmed on 13.02.2014; present writ petition filed in 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
