JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 22.7.2006 whereby the application filed under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for de-novo trial was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The main contention of the present petitioner is that a petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending and trial was commenced and the statement of complainant was recorded by the then Presiding Officer, who has been transferred. After then, an application under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was moved for de novo trial, which was rejected. It has been submitted the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was obligatory on the concerned Magistrate to try the case summarily or order otherwise and when no otherwise order was passed, it should be treated as summary trial and when the Presiding Officer has been changed, then de novo trial was must. He has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 CrLR (Raj.) 446 , which is in regard to Essential Commodities Act, where the provisions are to try all the offences under the Act in summary way. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case was tried as a regular summon case and as such, de novo trial was not necessary. He has placed reliance upon the judgments, delivered in Shivaji Sampat Jagtap vs. Rajan Hiralal Arora & Anr., 2007 CrLJ 122 , wherein the matter was discussed at length and it was specifically held that when a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been tried summarily and no record has been prepared under Sections 63 and 264 of the Code, it will be treated that the case has been tried otherwise and Section 26(3) CrPC has no role to play. In other words, if no record as per Sees. 263 and 264 of the Code has been maintained by the Magistrate, it will be treated that the case has been tried as regular summon case and not tried in summary way as contemplated under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the provisions of Section 26(3) of the Code will not attract and no de novo trial is needed. 5. 5. Same is the factual situation in the present case. The case was not tried summarily, no record was prepared under Sections 63 and 264 CrPC, hence, it will be treated as tried as regular summon case and no de novo trial was warranted. 6. Hence, in view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and thus the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******