USHMABEN DINESHBHAI GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal, 1973, the applicant the original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 3rd October, 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), Court No.30, Ahmedabad in the Criminal Case No.6735 of 2008, by which the learned Judge took the view that the evidence recorded in summary case by a predecessor Court, cannot be used for contradiction before the successor Court. To put it in other words, the learned Judge took the view that whenever the successor Court orders a de novo trial, the statements of the complainant recorded by the predecessor Court cannot be used for contradicting the complainant or his witnesses, if any. The deposition of the complainant recorded by the predecessor Court becomes inadmissible or nonexistent on account of the de novo trial.

(2.) Since a pure question of law falls for my consideration, I need not go much into the facts of the case. However, few basic facts may be stated thus:

(3.) Relying on the aforenoted decision of the Supreme Court, the complainant i.e. the respondent No.2 gave an application dated 21st December, 2011 before the trial Court that the case should be conducted de novo.