BELLARY MINERALS Vs. ASIF, PROP. SYEED TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This court had earlier allowed a criminal petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity) against an order of the appellate court setting aside the conviction of the present respondent by order dated 14.9.2011. The same having been challenged by the respondent before the apex court, the apex court has allowed the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.679/2012 and without going into the merits of the case, the order passed by this court was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh disposal by an order dated 20.4.2012. Though there was a direction that this court has to hear the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the apex court, it is only now that the matter is listed for final hearing. 3

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, the reasoning of the appellate court that given the circumstances of the case, the trial court ought to have framed charges and ought to have tried the case as a warrant case, does not find support under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Nl Act', for brevity), in that, insofar as a complaint for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, it is Chapter-XVII that would be applicable. Sec. 143 reads as follows:-

(3.) Therefore, the opinion expressed by the appellate court to the contrary, notwithstanding the reasons assigned, does not find support from the wording of section 143 of the NI Act and hence, the opinion expressed is erroneous and is consequently set aside. Since the appellate court would be in a position to re-appreciate the evidence and to draw its own conclusions, it is for the appellate court to address the case with reference to the material on record and take a decision one way or the other and there was no necessity to remand the matter. This court had earlier confirmed the conviction in the interest of justice. As the appellate court had proceeded to consider the case for remand and therefore had not addressed the findings of fact with reference to the material on record, the matter is remanded for a fresh consideration with reference to the material that is already on record.