was transferred after cross examination was recorded by him. The successor Magistrate passed an order on the complaint observing that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Nitinbhai Shah -vs- Manubhai Panchal, reported in 2011 (3) Bankers Journal 241, it was necessary to try the cases de novo . The learned Magistrate observed since the examination-in-chief of the complainant is by way of affidavits, there was no need to file fresh affidavits and the complainant can be cross examined afresh. The petitioner accused carried the matter in Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, claiming that de novo trial contemplates re-commencement of the proceedings from the stage of recording of plea. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that de novo trial implies recording of plea afresh. He also submitted that the affidavits in examination in chief cannot be looked into since they were tendered before the previous Magistrate and the complainant shall have again step into witness box. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment in Nitinbhai Shah -vsManubhai Panchal (supra). The Supreme Court after considering the provisions under Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that the provisions of Section 326 (1) and 326(2) are not applicable to summary trials and therefore, the Magistrate may not proceed to place reliance on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. He has to try the cases de novo . Learned
