9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amined by the respondent no. 2. Further statement was also recorded of the respondent no. 2. The trial court has held that the matter was not proceeded in summary triable manner. It appears that by not applying the ration laid down in the case of Nitinkumar Saventilal, learned trial court has rejected the application. The deposition of the complainant was also brought on record which speaks that he was examined but unfortunately right to cross-examine was closed by the Court and thereafter bank witness was also examined and such witness was cross-examined by the defence side. And thereafter, at the request of the complainant, further statement of the respondent no. 2 was recorded. The case was tried by the Metropolitan Court as summons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Application No. 05/2013 by Ld. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, directing de novo/fresh trial of a Criminal Case No. 610/08, pending in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 29 (NI Special Court), Ahmedabad. (C) Your Lordship may be pleased to expedite the trial of a Criminal Case No. 610/08, pending in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 29 (NI Special Court), Ahmedabad. Heard Learned Advocate for the applicant as well as Learned APP for the Respondent-State. However, notice was served to the Respondent No. 2, none was present to contest this petition for an on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: That, the applicant is the original complainant where as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross-examine was closed. Thereafter, further statement of respondent no. 2 was recorded on 01.02.2011 and trial was at the fag end and almost near completion on merits. That the respondent no. 2 (original accused) filed an application Exh. 38 for de novo trial before the trial court on 20.11.2012 and the learned Magistrate rejected the said application vide order dated 29.12.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no. 2 has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 05/2013 wherein, the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad was pleased to allow the said revision application vide order dated 25.07.2013 directing de novo trial and commencement of proceedings of afresh hence, present petition. Learned Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed in Special Criminal Application No. 898 of 2013 dated 15.07.2013 as well as the Criminal Appeal No. 968-971 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013. At the end learned advocate for the applicant has requested to allow present application, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 05 of 2013 by Learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad. Learned APP for the respondent no. 2 has requested to pass an appropriate order in the present matter. Nobody argued on behalf of respondent no. 2. Heaving heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and papers available on record, it appears that while passing the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent no. 2. The trial court has held that the matter was not proceeded in summary triable manner. It appears that by not applying the ration laid down in the case of Nitinkumar Saventilal, learned trial court has rejected the application. The deposition of the complainant was also brought on record which speaks that he was examined but unfortunately right to cross-examine was closed by the Court and thereafter bank witness was also examined and such witness was cross-examined by the defence side. And thereafter, at the request of the complainant, further statement of the respondent no. 2 was recorded. The case was tried by the Metropolitan Court as summons triable case as provided under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case where procedure for summons triable or warrant triable case has been adopted by the Magistrate and where no objection is raised by the accused till the fag end of the trial, it would not be permissible to raise such an objection insisting on fresh trial, which is precisely what has happened in the present case. The petitioner participated in the trial without any objection or murmur. Not only pre-charge evidence was recorded, the witnesses were offered for cross-examination even at the stage. The petitioner participated in the proceedings. The charge was framed. The witnesses were recalled and cross-examined at length by the defence. Only when the case was fixed for oral arguments, an objection to the procedure was taken. In our opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
