IMPORTANT POINT
The summary nature of proceedings under the Act, 1881 and the provision of appeal against the order of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Sonkar, State Law Officer for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.311 of 2022 (Old No.744 of 2018) (Shivnath Vs. Abhishek), under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Third, Jaunpur, as well as impugned order dated 26.10.2019.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint of the opposite party no.2 was rejected by order dated 13.03.2019 for non-prosecution as well as for not producing any evidence despite giving repeated opportunities and against that order, revision was preferred by the opposite party no.2, which was allowed by order dated 26.10.2019, and the matter was remanded to the Court below to consider the same on merits. It is further submitted that the order of the revisional Court is erroneous as no revision was maintainable because the order dismissing the complaint amounts to acquittal and the same can be challenged in appeal under Section-378(4) of Cr.P.C. and revisional court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against that order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.3426 of 2005 decided on 04.09.2007.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and State Law Officer has submitted that proceeding under the Act, 1881 is a summary proceeding and procedures of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the proceeding of the Act, 1881. It was also submitted that u/s 143 Cr.P.C., it was explicitly mentioned that in the proceeding of the Act, 1881, Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. will be applicable, and provision of appeal is provided u/s 148 of the Act, 1881 against the conviction u/s 138 of the Act, 1881.

5. After considering the submission of parties and on perusal of the record, it is undisputed that proceeding under the Act 1881 is summary proceeding, and Section-143 of the Act 1881, itself provides the procedure of the complaint under the Act 1881 and further provides that Sections 262 to 265 Cr.P.C. will be applicable as far as maybe even without adopting the strict procedure of summons cases. For ready reference, Section 143 of the Act 1881 is being quoted 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:

Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees:

Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.

(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the tr