| |
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1874
|
| Court : High Court of Karnataka |
| Case No : Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 693, 694 Of 2018 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI |
| Parties : S. Subramanya Bhat & Another Versus Nagaraj Tanthri |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K.S. Prasad, Archana Murthy, Advocates. For the Respondent: A. Tasmin, Nataraja Ballal, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 27-11-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 -
Case Referred:
Sankar Sarkar v. Subahraj and Anr., - CDJ 2012 SC 234
Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 49269, |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
- Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Catch Words:
- Revision
- Appeal
- De Novo Trial
- Summary Trial
- Remand
3. Summary:
The petitioners filed criminal revision petitions under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 28.11.2012 which had remitted the cases to the trial court for a de novo trial. The original convictions under Sec. 138 NI Act and Sec. 420 IPC were challenged on the ground that the Supreme Court’s ratio in Nitinbhai Shah’s case applied only to summary trials, not to full evidence recordings. The court examined the Supreme Court decisions in Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and J.V. Baharuni, confirming that the ratio does not extend to full trials. It held that the appellate court’s remand was unsustainable. Consequently, both revision petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate court for merits determination.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: This Crl.RP is filed u/S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying to setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K., dated 28.11.2012, in Crl.Appeal No.135/2011,and consequently remand the matter back to the lower appellate court to pass an order on merits.
This Crl.RP is filed u/S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying to setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K., dated 28.11.2012, in Crl.Appeal No.134/2011, vide Annexure D and remand the matter back to the lower appellate court to pass an order on merits.)
Oral Order
1. Challenging order dated 28.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Puttur, D.K., ('Appellate Court' for short), in Crl.A.no.135/2011 and Crl.A.no.134/2011, these revision petitions are filed.
2. Sri K.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Archana Murthy, advocate for petitioner submitted that these revision petitions were by complainants in C.C.no.191/2004 and C.C.no.1056/2003 on file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belthangady, D.K., ('Trial Court', for short). It was submitted, private complaints were filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) against respondent/accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short) as well as under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short).
3. It was submitted, same ended in judgments dated 26.07.2011 convicting accused. Said judgments was challenged by accused in Crl.A.no.135/2011 and Crl.A.no.134/2011 which were disposed of on 28.11.2012 by Appellate Court by setting aside impugned judgment and remitting matter back to Trial Court for de novo trial in light of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah and Anr. v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr., reported in 2011 SAR (Criminal) 808, reiterated in Sankar Sarkar v. Subahraj and Anr., reported in CDJ 2012 SC 234.
4. Assailing same, it was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Shreeji Cab Company and Ors., reported in 2014 (13) SCC 619, had clarified that ratio in Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah's case would apply only in case of summary trial by Magistrate and would not apply where evidence was recorded in full and not in summary manner. It was submitted, said proposition reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of J.V. Baharuni and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2014 (10) SCC 494. In view of above, it was submitted that order of remand passed by Appellate Court would not be justified and sought for setting aside of same.
5. On other hand, Smt.Tasmin A., learned counsel appearing for Sri Natraja Ballal, advocate for accused opposed petition. It was submitted, Appellate Court had rightly applied ratio in Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah's case and there was no scope for revision.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment as well as ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions relied upon.
7. Perusal of Trial Court records would indicate that recording of evidence by learned Magistrate in both cases was in full and not in summary manner. However, judgments were passed by a different Magistrate than one, who had recorded evidence. But, it is seen that ratio in Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah's case would not apply where recording of evidence was in full, as clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and J.V. Baharuni cases (supra).
8. In view of above, impugned judgments passed by Appellate Court remanding matter back to Trial Court for de novo trial would be unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In view of same, both criminal revision petitions are allowed, order dated 28.11.2012 passed by Appellate Court in Crl.A.no.135/2011 and Crl.A.no.134/2011 are set aside. Matter stands remitted back to Appellate Court to hear and decide appeals on merit, in accordance with law.
|
| |
