Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exh.1 in SCC No. 1326/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur, District Osmanabad. The case is filed by petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') against the present respondent No. 1. The complainant has filed evidence as examination in chief by filing affidavit and he was cross-examined by the defence counsel. The evidence was recorded before another Presiding Officer on 5.12.2009. Another Magistrate took charge of this Court and passed order under challenge on 5.10.2013. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3076 : [2011 ALL SCR 2130] [Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Anr. Vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr.), he ordered denovo trial. Both the sides are heard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the case is shown to be registered as summary criminal case, the evidence was recorded for the purpose of regular summons case and not in case tried as summary manner and so, there is no need of denovo trial. This Court has discussed the points raised in this petition in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 244/13 & 56/14: (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 285] (Abdul Khabeer s/o. Muniroddin Siddiqui Vs. Mohd. Osmanoddin s/o. Mohd. Fazluddin Qureshi] today itself and the following observations are made.

"4) In view of the nature of aforesaid challenge to the decision of the Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge, the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and the Act need to be seen first.

5) The relevant portion of the provision of section 143(1) of the Act runs as under:-

"143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials:"

The aforesaid provision has three parts as under :-

(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code as amended in 1974, the provisions of the Special Act will apply.

(ii) All the offences under this Chapter (Chapter XVII) of the Act shall be tried by J.M.F.C. or by Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as 'M.M.') and

(iii) The provisions of sections 262 to 265 of the Code (both inclusive) shall as far as may be apply to such trials.

The bare reading of this provision shows that some change is made in the procedure laid down in the Court by the special provisions of the Act. To ascertain what is the exact change, the provisions of sections 262, 265 of the Code need to be seen. Only after the comparison of these provisions, the object behind the provisions of the Act can be ascertained. Similarly, the other relevant provisions of the Code with regard to the class to which such cases belong need to be seen.

6) In section 2(w) of the Code, the definition of 'summons case' is given and in section 2(x) of the Code, the definition of 'warrant case' is given. They run as under :-

"(w) "summons-case" means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case;

(x) "warrant-case" means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;"

Thus, when the substantive sentence that can be imposed for offence exceeds two years, the case falls under the category of 'warrant case' and if the sentence is up to two years of imprisonment, the case falls under the category of 'summons case'.

7) Section 4 of the Code provides that all the offences punishable