JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 521 of 2003 decided on 24-7-2003. The appellant prays that certain objectionable and derogatory remarks made against him by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the impugned Judgment be expunged. The remarks which are sought to be expunged are as follows:-

1. It appears that Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. Sessions Judge has scant regard for the judgments of this court and sticks to the procedure of trial of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act invented by him and not the one prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The illegality, harshness and judicial tyranny is writ large in the impugned order as the learned ASJ imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000.

5. .....................At the first instance procedure adopted by the learned ASJ suffers from every vice that illegality, irregularity, infirmity and non adherence of mandatory provisions laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Even on the premise of misconceived notion about the procedure of trial, the impugned order is anything but judicial.

There is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure Code for passing an order of the kind we are confronted with.

7. It appears that learned ASG was labouring under the belief that evidence in defence is just a formality and is not as important as evidence of the complainant or the prosecution.

..................The impugned order militates not only against judicial conscious but also criminal jurisprudence and therefore is unsustainable and has to go.

9. It is not for the first lime that this court has come across several such orders passed by this learned ASG which hit at the foundation of judicial tenets and decisions down the lines.

..................Learned ASJ is advised to be careful in future in acting upon the dictums handed down by this court lest he lands himself for action for contempt of court.

10. Copy of this order be sent to all the Judicial Officers/M.Ms. ASJs. for guidance and compliance in order to rule out the possibility of any other Judicial Officer emulating Shri S.N. Dhingra by resorting to such a misadventure.

At the relevant time, the appellant was Additional Sessions Judge. While posted as such, the appellant had occasion to decide a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, the complainant had filed three complaints in regard to dishonouring of following three cheques:-

Cheque No.	Date	Amount
213634	1st August, 1999	Rs. 10 lakhs
213635	1st August, 1999	Rs. 10 lakhs
213636	1st August, 1999	Rs. 10 lakhs

      2. Separate complaints were filed in regard to the dishonouring of each cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording of preliminary evidence brought on record by the complainant and hearing arguments, prima facie found that an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was deemed to have been committed. He took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused for 8-4-2002. It appears that in obedience to the general order issued by the Delhi High Court, all cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Magistrates' Courts were transferred to the Court of Sessions. In these circumstances, this particular case came to be allotted to the Court of the appellant. The accused along with his counsel appeared before the appellant. They were directed to furnish bail bonds and surety which were duly furnished. Copies of the complaints and all documents and pre-summoning evidence were also furnished to the accused. Thereafter the case was fixed for consideration of notice under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure Code on 14-8-2002. Notice under Section 251Code of Criminal Procedure Code