MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 1350 of 2006 (Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manoj Kumar Agrawal and another) under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and also the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad passed in Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2013 (Manoj Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. State of UP. and another) whereby the revision was dismissed and the initial order passed by the trial court was affirmed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri Kshitij Shailendra on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AGA on behalf of the State and also perused the entire record including the impugned orders.

(3.) The central hub of the submission made by the counsel is that the act of recording evidence that has been done by the trial court was performed before a different Presiding Officer and not the same who is at present seized with the jurisdiction of the trial. The attention of the Court has been drawn on Section 326 (3) Cr.P.C. which carves out an exception to the preceding sub section and in clear terms intends to oust the jurisdiction of the subsequent presiding officers to decide the cases in which the evidence has already been recorded by their predecessors. The contention is that Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code though in general validates the legality of the evidence recorded by the predecessor judges or judicial officers and recognizes its evidentiary value and it is not at all needed that the succeeding judicial officers should again undertake the exercise to recall the witnesses and again record their evidence but, according to the counsel, the trial which takes place in a summary manner or the trial where the procedure of summary trial provided under the Criminal Procedure Code is adopted, then such general provision shall not apply and in the statute itself sub-clause (3) to Section 326 has been provided as an exception. It has also been argued that Section 143 (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act also makes it clear that the trial of the petitioners shall be presumed to have taken place as a summary trial and, therefore, all the evidence which is finding its place on the records and was recorded by the preceeding judicial officers shall lose its evidenciary value and cannot be acted upon by the succeeding judicial officer who is at present incharge of the case.