Point of Law : Remitting matter for a de-novo trial should be exercised as a last resort and should be used sparingly when there is grave miscarriage of justice in light of illegality, irregularity, incompetence or any other defect which cannot be cured at an appellate stage. [Para 17]

ORDER :

The present petitioner, as a complainant had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in C.C.No.25334/2010, against the present respondents, arraigning them as accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively in the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the N.I. Act”).

2. After holding a trial and recording the evidence led by both side, the learned Magistrate of the Trial Court, by her judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01-02-2013 convicted the accused No.1 and accused No.2 before her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced the accused No.2 to pay a fine of Rs.66,49,881/-and in default of the payment of the said fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the Trial Court preferred Criminal Appeal No.103/2013, in the Court of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH 53) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge’s Court”) which Court, by its judgment dated 02-09-2013, allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court ordering for a de-novo trial.

Aggrieved by the same, the complainant in the Trial Court has preferred this criminal revision petition.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein, who are accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the Trial Court are represented by their learned counsel.

4. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner (complainant) and the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) are physically appearing in the Court.

6. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the memorandum of revision petition, impugned judgments, the Trial Court records and also the Sessions Judge's Court’s records.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Court of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-53) dated 02-09-2013 in Criminal Appeal No.103/2013, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

9. Learned counsel for the complainant (revision petitioner) in his argument submitted that, though Section 143 of the N.I. Act prescribes the proceedings for the alleged offences to be tried as a summary trial, however, the matter in the Trial Court was tried as a regular trial. For the same, the Magistrate of the Trial Court has also assigned reasons in her impugned judgment. That being the case, the Sessions Judge’s Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court ordering for a de-novo trial.

In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.V. BAHARUNI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 494.

With this, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Sessions Judge's Court for its disposal on the merits of the case.

10. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 and accused No.2 (respondents No.1 and 2 in the Trial Court) also in her brief argument submitted that, since the Sessions Judge's Court has not decided the matter on its merit, the same deserves to be remanded.

11. As per Section 143 of the N.I. Act, the nature of the proce