JUDGMENT :

N.V. Ramana, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The undisputed facts of the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5623 of 2012 are that Appellant No. 2 is the owner of Appellant No. 1 Company. The Respondent No. 2, who is in the business of manufacture, process and marketing of petroleum products, has a 'Company Owned Company Operated' retail outlet at Village Gadu, Maliya Hatina Taluq, District Junagadh, Gujarat. Appellants entered into a contract with the Respondent No. 2 Corporation for performing various contractual jobs. As per the terms of the contract, the Appellants were required to undertake the contracted jobs and to deposit the money out of sale proceeds on a daily basis in the State Bank of India, Veraval Branch. The business dealings between the parties were going on since 1996 and in terms of the contract Appellants furnished to the Respondent No. 2, two Cheques bearing Nos. 884572 and 884574, dated 24th June, 2000 for Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs, respectively. When the cheques were presented for realization, they bounced with the endorsement "not arranged for". Hence, Respondent No. 2 initiated criminal proceedings Under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') against the Appellants and filed Criminal Complaint No. 2131 of 2000.

3. Before the Trial Court it was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 2-Corporation that the cheques in question were issued by the Appellants to discharge their part liability for clearing the dues whereas the case of the Appellants was that there were no dues payable to the Respondent Corporation and the Cheques were taken by the complainant-Corporation as 'guarantee' and misused the same.

4. The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant No. 2-accused Under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure.) holding that considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account the evidence and the settled principles of law, complainant has failed to prove the charge against the accused and under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, the Respondent No. 2-complainant challenged it in an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat Under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended before the High Court on behalf of the complainant-Corporation that the evidence was recorded by one Magistrate and relying on the same evidence, his successor Magistrate delivered the judgment. Therefore, the trial was vitiated as the case was tried 'summarily' Under Section 143 of the N.I. Act, and the successor Magistrate could not have relied upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor. Placing reliance on this Court's decision in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal AIR 2011 SC 3076, the complainant submitted that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for a de novo trial.

6. The High Court observed that the learned Magistrate who delivered the judgment was not in a position to appreciate the evidence properly and decide the matter effectively to do substantial justice as he formed the opinion relying upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor. It, therefore, caused serious prejudice to the complainant as an order of acquittal was passed. Hence, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh trial in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties.

7. Dissatisfied with the High Court's judgment, the accused- Appellants assailed it in appeal before this Court. On 6th August, 2012, this Court while issuing notice, stayed proceedings going on before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the remand order passed by the High Court.

8. The brief facts of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3332 of 2012 are that at the relevant time, the complainant-Jayesh Thakker was the Manager of Respondent No. 1 firm (D.M. Finance). Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were