SUMEDHA Vs. KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for Respondent accepted that costs, as directed by this Court on the last occasion, has been received.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent, finally.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that in this matter, criminal complaint S.T.C. No.2256 of 2009 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6 at Latur. The matter is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate on 7th February, 2013 passed order that the trial of the case shall proceed denovo, as evidence recorded in the matter earlier, was by another Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that in the Revision filed by the present Respondent (original complainant) being Criminal Revision No.10 of 2013, the Sessions Court has erroneously held that the evidence recorded in the matter is not as per summary trial. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court had relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rightly held that the trial needs to be denovo, but the Sessions Court wrongly held that the evidence was not recorded as per the procedure prescribed for summary trial. According to the learned counsel, although the observations of the Sessions Court show that crossexamination of complainant was running into 15 pages and that crossexamination of accused/Applicant herself was running into 20 pages, still according to the counsel, only by referring to howmany pages the crossexamination was, will not indicate that it was not notes of evidence.