1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 2911/2009 Mahadeo Baburao Kale ..vs.. Manohar Kondbaji Jadhao --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Bhattad, Advocate for applicant. None for non applicant, though served. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 22 nd SEPTEMBER,2009 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant. 2. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha before whom Summary Criminal Complaint No. 48/2002, filed by the non applicant was pending, passed an order on 12.04.2007, as follows. “Evidence was recorded by my predecessor, hence trial be de novo.” 3. This order came to be challenged by non applicant by filing Criminal Revision No. 8/2007 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Darwha. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, by judgment and order dated 20.01.2009 set aside the order dated 12.04.2007 and directed that Criminal case should be tried on merits as 2 expeditiously as possible. This order dated 20.01.2009 passed learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha is challenged by way of this application. 4. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhattad. It appears that no specific reasons came to be given by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwah for directing de novo trial. Even otherwise, reasons given that evidence was recorded by his predecessor, cannot be a reason for conducting de novo trial. This order came to be challenged by complainant-non applicant, which was quashed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in revisional jurisdiction. 5. I have perused the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears that he was convinced that order dated 12.04.2007 could not have been passed. However, while arriving at this decision something was said on the merits of the matter, which in my view was not required to be done. 6. In my view, in the absence of proper reasons for directing the de novo trial, which is a very rare phenomena, the final order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha needs to be confirmed with clarification that 3 whatever is stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing order dated 20.01.2009 touching the merits of the matter will not be considered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha while deciding the matter on merits. 7. Learned Advocate informs this Court that recording of evidence in the Summary Criminal Complaint No. 48/2002 is over. If this is so, what remains now to be attended is arguments of both the sides. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, following order is passed so as to dispose of the application at the stage of admission. (a) No interference is required in the impugned order dated 20.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 8/2008 by which order dated 12.04.2007 in Summary Criminal Case No. 48/2002 was set aside. (b) Order dated 12.04.2007 directing de novo trial is set aside. Now, the stage of recording of evidence is over. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha shall hear the arguments of both the sides and pass a judgment on merits, without being influenced by whatever is stated 4 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in his order dated 20.01.2009, to the extent it touches the merits of the matter. (c) The application is disposed of at the stage of admission in above terms. JUDGE kahale