1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned advocate for the respondents. Learned advocate for the applicant at the outset submitted that the entire controversy is in a very narrow compass and now the issue qua denovo trial on account of not conducting the trial summarily is no more res integra needing to carryout or consider as the Division Bench has unequivocally pronounced this decision and even Supreme Court also in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., V/s. Shreeji CAB Co. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos.968971 of 2013 vide its order dated 12th July, 2013 decided the issue, would address the entire controversy.

2. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Ms.Archana C. Raval, learned APP for respondent no.4 submitted that let the matter be decided finally. Hence, Rule. Mr.P.P Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Ms.Archana C. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.4. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, Rule is fixed forthwith and the matter is disposed of as under :

3. The applicant, by way of this application preferred under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India approached this Court with following reliefs.

A). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dtd.21/06/2012 passed by the learned 9th Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Ex.150 in Criminal Case No.8910/2008, in the interest of justice and equity;

B). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of order dtd.21/06/2012 passed by the Ld. 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Ex.150 in Criminal Case No.8910/2008, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition ;

C). YOUR Lordships be pleased to direct the concerned Trial Court, Jamnagar to conduct and conclude the proceedings of Criminal Case No.8910/2008 from the stage it is pending, within such stipulated time period as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice;

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is order dated 21st June, 2012 passed by 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Exh.150 in Criminal Case No.8910 of 2008 where under, the Court ordered fresh recording of evidence on the ground that there was no compliance of the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in light of the decision of this Court in case of Vishnu Hargovandas Patel.

4. The facts in brief leading to filing of this application as could be culledout from the memo of the application deserve to be set out as under.

5. The applicant, who happens to be the complainant was constrained to lodge criminal case being Criminal Case No.8910 of 2008 in the competent Court under the provisions of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the cheque bearing no.021648 dated 3rd November, 2008 issued by and on behalf of original accused, was dishonoured by the bank and the amount despite the statutory notice remained unpaid. The criminal case proceeded at various stages and the trial commenced as if it was a summons case. There was no mentioning or objection or demur at any stage from any quarter qua conducting the matter as if it was a summons case. Looking to the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in light of the decision of this Court, as well as the Apex Court, an application came to be preferred under Exh.150 on behalf of accused inter alia praying that as the Trial Court did not proceed in the trial summary and there is no specific order as provided under the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for recording reasons for conducting the trial as if it was summons trial, the Court has t