SHIVA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act', for brevity). The matter was contested. It transpires that trial was on and the evidence was recorded partially. The Presiding Officer was transferred and the next Presiding Officer who took charge, continued with the proceedings, drawing sustenance from Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and ultimately had convicted the present petitioner, which was challenged in appeal.

(3.) IT is also to be noticed that in the present case on hand, on verification, the counsel would submit that the Magistrate did not state that the case which is required to be tried summarily was being tried as a summons case which was a requirement if had been complied with, it was possible to draw sustenance from Section 326 of the Cr.P.C. That exercise not having been carried out, the procedure followed is not in accordance with law. Hence, the matter stands remanded to the Trial Court.