J.V. BAHARUNI & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 16-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 10 S.C.R. 106·1 
J.V. BAHARUNI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2221 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 16, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
B 
s.138 rlw s.143 - Acquittal by Magistrate - High Court c 
remanding the cases to Magistrate for de novo trial, as 
evidence was recorded by one Magistrate and conviction was 
recorded by his successor-A case u/s 138 of N.I. Act, which 
requires to be tried in a summary way as contemplated uls 
143 of the Act, when in fact, was tried as regular summons 
0 
case it would not come within the purview of s.326 (3) of the 
Code and, as such, it need not be heard de novo and the 
succeeding Magistrate can follow the procedure contemplated 
u/s 326 (1) of the Code- In the cases on hand, without strong, 
cogent, unimpeachable evidence on record that cases were 
E 
tried 'summarily' but not as regular trial, High Court gravely 
erred in remanding them to trial court for a de novo trial -
Impugned judgments of High Court are set aside and matters 
remanded to it for consideration on merits. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
F 
1 s.326(3) of the Code, rlw s.143 of NI Act- De novo trial 
in cases arising out of s. 138, NI Act -
A de novo trial should 
be the last resort and that too only when such a course 
becomes so desperately indispensable -
It should be limited 
G 
to the extreme exigency to avert "a failure of justice" -
Any 
omission or even illegality in the procedure which does not 
affect the core of the case is not a ground for ordering a de 
novo trial -
The ratio in Nitinbhai must not be followed 
1061 
H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A mechanically to remand matters to trial courts for de novo trial 
- There should be proper application of judicial mind and 
evidence on record must be thoroughly perused before 
arriving at any conclusion with regard to mode of trial -
Directions issued for courts seized off with similar cases -
B Administration of criminal justice. 
Administration of justice 
Criminal justice - 'Speedy trial' and 'fair trial' - Explained. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sub-s. (1) of s.143 of the N.I. Act makes it · 
clear that all offences under Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act 
shall be tried by the Magistrate 'summarily' applying, as 
far as may be, provisions of ss. 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. Sub-
D s. (2) mandates that so far as practicable, the trial has to 
be conducted on a day to day basis until its conclusion. 
An analysis ·of s.143 brings out that the Magistrate, 
initially, should try the case 'summarily' if he is of the 
opinion that he is not going to pass sentence of 
E imprisonment not exceeding one year and fine of 
Rs.5,0001-. In case during the course of trial, if the 
Magistrate forms a different opinion that in the 
circumstances of the case, he may order a sentence of a 
term exceeding one year, or for any other reason it is 
F undesirable to try the case summarily, he must record the 
reasons for doing so and go for a 'regular trial'. The 
second proviso to sub-s. (1) of s.143, gives discretion to 
the Magistrate to conduct the case other than in summary 
G 
manner. [para 25-26] (1077-B, E-H] 
1.2. In Nitinbhai, the case was established as being 
decided 'summarily' whereas in the instant cases, no 
such independent inquiry has been undertaken by the 
High Court to arrive at a just conclusion whether the 
H cases were tried "summarily" or in a "regular way". On 
J.V. BAHARUNI & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1063 
the other hand, the trial indicates all trappings of regular 
A 
trial and, as such, cannot simply be termed as "summary 
trial". [para 32-34] 
Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah Vs. Manubhai Manjibhai 
Panchal 2011 (10) SCR 804 = AIR 2011 SC 3076 -
B 
distinguished. 
1.3. In the instant cases, Magistrate has not 
specifically mentioned that the trial was conducted as 
summons case or summary case. Thus, the High Court 
has not applied its mind independently by thoroughly 
C 
examining the records about the procedure followed in 
these cases by the Magistrate. If the case in substance 
was not tried in a summary way, though was triable 
summarily, and was tried as a summons case, it need not 
be heard de novo and the succeeding Magistrate can 
D 
follow the procedure contemplated u/s 326 (1) of the 
Code. [para 35-37] [1086-G; 1087-E-H; 1088-A] 
Ramilaben Trikam/al Shah vs. Tube and Allied Products 
& Ors. 2007 ALLMR (Cri) 1637 (Born); A. Kri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.