SAURAV GARG Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common ground of challenge is raised against the judgements passed by the Additional Sessions Judges, Sangrur, in these six Criminal Revision Petitions, whereby the Court has setaside the orders passed by the trial Magistrates in cases decided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the same Magistrate did not decide the cases, who had earlier recorded the evidence in the cases. Accordingly all the six Criminal Revision Nos.546 of 2012 (Saurav Garg Versus Jai Gopal), 1257 of 2012, (Bagirath Rai Versus Tarsem Singh), 1258 of 2012 (Narinderjit Singh Versus Tarsem Singh), 1272 of 2012 (Pargat Singh Versus Mela Singh and another), 1389 of 2012 (Sukhwinder Singh versus Sunil Kumar) and 1390 of 2012 ( M/s Sant Ram Budh Ram Versus Narinder Sharma and another) are being decided through this common order. The facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No. 546 of 2012.

(2.) Additional Sessions Judges, while deciding these cases, have placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and another Vs. Munubhai Manjibhai Panchal and another, 2011 AIR(SC) 3076.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case, has held that Magistrate holding summary trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") has to record the evidence and bring it to finality and the Magistrate who has recorded the entire evidence, if transferred, then the successor magistrate, who delivers the judgement, on the basis of evidence recorded by his predecessor can not be sustained. It is viewed that the successor Magistrate can not proceed with the trial, placing reliance on the evidence recorded by his predecessor and he has got to try the case denovo.