IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.79 of 2003 Date of decision : June 29, 2009 Dr. Karan J. Singh …Petitioner. Versus M/s Kapil Traders …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P-6, whereby his appeal against conviction for offence, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been dismissed and Revision Petition filed by M/s Kapil Traders, Dharampur, on whose complaint he had been convicted of the said offence, has been allowed, by Shri J.S. Mahantan, Additional Sessions Judge, Solan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri J.S. Mahantan was earlier a Judicial Magistrate and in that capacity he had dealt with the complaint and put the substance of accusation to the revision petitioner and so he ought not to have heard the appeal, filed by him and the revision petition filed by the respondent. He submits that an application, Annexure P-2, was submitted to the learned Additional Sessions Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Judge, with the prayer that he, having partly conducted the proceedings in the complaint case, as aforesaid, ought not to decide the matter himself and to send the same to the Sessions Judge for disposal, in accordance with law, but he dismissed that application, vide order dated 3rd January, 2003, Annexure P-5. 4. When the Additional Sessions Judge had conducted the proceedings of the complaint, judicial propriety demanded that he did not hear the appeal and the Revision Petition against the final judgment, passed by the Judicial Magistrate. As a mater of fact, he should have, on his own, returned the record to the Sessions Judge, but not only did not he do so, he even rejected the application, moved by the revision petitioner, for the purpose. Order Annexure P-5, vide which that application was rejected, reveals non-application of mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. In view of the abovestated position, present Revision Petition is allowed, impugned order Annexure P-6 is set aside and the appeal and the Revision Petition are remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, for disposal, in accordance with law. The matter being very old learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to dispose it of by 30th September, 2009, positively. Records of the Revision Petition, the appeal and of the trial Court be returned to the Additional Sessions Judge, with a copy of this judgment immediately, and in any case, within a week. …3… 6. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, either in person or through their counsel, on 15th July, 2009. Petition stands disposed of. June 29, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J