JUDGEMENT
K. Ramakrishnan, J. -
(1.)COMPLAINANT in S.T. No. 360/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi and first respondent in Crl.Appeal No. 31/2006 of Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein.
(2.)THE revision petitioner filed a private complaint against the first respondent herein alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and after complying with the procedure, it was taken on file as S.T. No. 360/2003 by the learned magistrate. After evidence, the first respondent was found guilty under Section 138 of the Act and he was convicted and sentenced. Against which, first respondent herein filed Crl.Appeal No. 31/2006 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad which was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment, relying on the decision of this court in Kanakarajan Vs. Vipin [ : 2013 (4) KLT 227] observed that the court has not recorded a reason for converting the case to summons trial case to record elaborate evidence and not following the procedure will vitiate the entire trial of the case and set aside the order of conviction and sentence and remanded the case for de novo trial as mentioned in Kanakarajan's case (supra). That is being challenged by the first respondent - complainant in the lower court by filing the above revision.
Heard both sides.
(3.)THE Counsel for the revision petitioner Shri. Sunny Mathew submitted that, in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Baharuni J.V. and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another [ : 2014 (4) KHC 476 (SC)], Kanakarajan's case (supra) is no longer good law and the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge has to be directed to dispose of the case on merit. Further, proviso to Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act only gives an option for the magistrate to convert the summary trial into summons trial only if he feels that, sentence has to be imposed for more than one year. In this case, the sentence imposed is not more than one year. So, the above decision is not applicable.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.