( 1 ) THIS order also governs disposal of MCrc Nos. 291/05 to 297/05 filed by Steel Tubes of India v. Steel Authority of India.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant / complainant Steel authority of India Limited has filed eight cases for dishonour of eight cheques, in each cheque the amount of one crore or more than one crores is involved. The complainant in his complaints, as well as statements recorded under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") has not disclosed as to against which liability or debt, the cheque was issued in his favour by the applicant. The applicant herein, filed an application under Section 91 of the Code seeking direction before the trial Court for production of documents by the non applicant /complainant regarding transaction concerning with the cheques issued by the applicant and their dishonour by the Bank, but according to the applicant, some documents were filled in and the same were not filed. The applicant was not satisfied with the documents filed by the non applicant therefore, he has filed the application under Section 259 of the Code praying for conversion of summons case into warrant case. He submitted before the trial Court that looking to the huge amount involved and number of documents required to be adduced by either party, the case may be tried as warrant case. This prayer of the applicant has been turned down by the trial Court in all eight cases. Against that order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the trial Court, the applicant went up in revision and the learned lower revisional court has also dismissed the revision by the impugned orders. That is how the applicant has approached this Court by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused is that summons case can be tried as warrant case and in the code of 1973 specific provision in this regard is prescribed i. e. Section 259. This provision is prescribed in Chapter 20 of the code. Learned counsel has submitted that the application of the applicant has been turned down on wrong premises and the learned Courts below have failed to consider real implication of Section 259 of the Code and intention of legislature. According to him, if transaction between the parties is relating to the huge amount and there were several transactions between the parties as well as for proving the transaction number of documents would be required by the complainant as well as the applicant/accused to adduce in evidence, in such circumstances, summons case should be tried as warrant case so: that effective opportunity would be given to all parties to prove their, case in accordance with law and Court would also be facilitated to dig out the truth and come to right conclusion.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that he could not lay hands on any decision of the Apex Court or even by any High Court on this point. However, he placed reliance on Sohani's commentary on the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 18th Edition 1985 (3) 2865. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under" "the only guideline fpr the Magistrate to exercise his discretion under this section is the interests of justice. "interests of justice" is, however, a very flexible expression, which may not provide any dependable or decisive guide to the Magistrate. The circumstances which the Magistrate may take into consideration in arriving at his decision in this respect may be - (i) the nature of the offence, simple or complicated : (ii) the nature of the evidence, again just the statements of a few witnesses or lengthy statements coupled with mass of documentary evidence; (iii) the number of the accused and the charges against them.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the impugned order and other documents filed by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as provision under Section 259 of the Code, this court is of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document