ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned advocate for the respondents. Learned advocate for the applicant at the outset submitted that the entire controversy is in a very narrow compass and now the issue qua denovo trial on account of not conducting the trial summarily is no more res integra needing to carryout or consider as the Division Bench has unequivocally pronounced this decision and even Supreme Court also in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., V/s. Shreeji CAB Co. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos.968971 of 2013 vide its order dated 12th July, 2013 decided the issue, would address the entire controversy. 2. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Ms.Archana C. Raval, learned APP for respondent no.4 submitted that let the matter be decided finally. Hence, Rule. Mr.P.P Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Ms.Archana C. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.4. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, Rule is fixed forthwith and the matter is disposed of as under : 3. The applicant, by way of this application preferred under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India approached this Court with following reliefs. A). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dtd.21/06/2012 passed by the learned 9th Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Ex.150 in Criminal Case No.8910/2008, in the interest of justice and equity; B). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of order dtd.21/06/2012 passed by the Ld. 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Ex.150 in Criminal Case No.8910/2008, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition ; C). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of order dtd.21/06/2012 passed by the Ld. 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Ex.150 in Criminal Case No.8910/2008, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition ; C). YOUR Lordships be pleased to direct the concerned Trial Court, Jamnagar to conduct and conclude the proceedings of Criminal Case No.8910/2008 from the stage it is pending, within such stipulated time period as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice; Thus, what is essentially under challenge is order dated 21st June, 2012 passed by 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Exh.150 in Criminal Case No.8910 of 2008 where under, the Court ordered fresh recording of evidence on the ground that there was no compliance of the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in light of the decision of this Court in case of Vishnu Hargovandas Patel. 4. The facts in brief leading to filing of this application as could be culledout from the memo of the application deserve to be set out as under. 5. The applicant, who happens to be the complainant was constrained to lodge criminal case being Criminal Case No.8910 of 2008 in the competent Court under the provisions of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the cheque bearing no.021648 dated 3rd November, 2008 issued by and on behalf of original accused, was dishonoured by the bank and the amount despite the statutory notice remained unpaid. The criminal case proceeded at various stages and the trial commenced as if it was a summons case. There was no mentioning or objection or demur at any stage from any quarter qua conducting the matter as if it was a summons case. The criminal case proceeded at various stages and the trial commenced as if it was a summons case. There was no mentioning or objection or demur at any stage from any quarter qua conducting the matter as if it was a summons case. Looking to the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in light of the decision of this Court, as well as the Apex Court, an application came to be preferred under Exh.150 on behalf of accused inter alia praying that as the Trial Court did not proceed in the trial summary and there is no specific order as provided under the provision of Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for recording reasons for conducting the trial as if it was summons trial, the Court has to record the evidence afresh or else, it will be breach of the provision. The said application of the accused dated 8th June, 2012 for denovo trial unfortunately came to be allowed vide order dated 21st June, 2012, which is subject matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant invited this Court’s attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Babubhai Jinabhai Gujjar V/s. State of Gujarat, in Special Criminal Application No.898 of 2013 and contended that the issue with regard to the denovo trial is now no more res integra as it is settled that the denovo trial is required to be ordered only and only in case where the recording of evidence was in the form of summary trial and the change of the Presiding Officer, who has not recorded the evidence in summary fashion was to decide the matter, if in case, the recording of evidence in form of summons case, meaning thereby in case if at length procedure of summons trial is followed and it is recorded by the Magistrate/presiding officer then in that case, the Court need not order denovo trial. In the instant case, as could be seen from the order itself, the Court has recorded clearly that the trial has gone and as if it was a summons case only. Mere non-recording of reasons for conducting the trial as summons case would not in any way entitle the accused to seek denovo trial. In the instant case, as could be seen from the order itself, the Court has recorded clearly that the trial has gone and as if it was a summons case only. Mere non-recording of reasons for conducting the trial as summons case would not in any way entitle the accused to seek denovo trial. It is nothing but a delaying tactics adopted for prolonging the trial and this Court may not countenance it in any manner. Learned advocate for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., V/s. Shreeji CAB Co. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos.968971 of 2013 vide its order dated 12th July, 2013, wherein also Apex Court has held that the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr. V/s. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 638 decided by the Apex Court have no applicability to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 7. Learned advocate for the applicant contended that the decision of the Court, which has been relied upon by the Trial Court for ordering denovo trial cannot now said to be a good law so as to sustain that order and therefore, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused Shri Majmudar contended that there cannot be any dispute qua proposition of law laid down in the judgment cited at the bar. However, the statutory provision under Section 143 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and proviso thereunder clearly indicate the manner in which the Court in case if choose to try the matter as a summons case, has to record its reasons and in the instant case, the record clearly indicate that there exits no such recording and hence, the Court was left with no choice but to order denovo trial as it is ordered in the impugned order and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same. 9. The Court is of the view that before adverting to the rival submissions of learned advocate for the parties, it is most appropriate and expedient to refer the indisputable findings and facts recorded by the trial Court while passing the order below Exh.150, which would certainly give proper ground for appreciating the rival submissions. 10. 9. The Court is of the view that before adverting to the rival submissions of learned advocate for the parties, it is most appropriate and expedient to refer the indisputable findings and facts recorded by the trial Court while passing the order below Exh.150, which would certainly give proper ground for appreciating the rival submissions. 10. The trial Court has in an unequivocal terms, recorded its finding that the case was registered in the year 2008 and it was being conducted before more than one Magistrate. The Court has also recorded that looking to the plea recording proceedings, the case cannot be said to have been ever tried as summary case. The Court has further recorded that the plea is to be recorded in a particular form under the provision of Section 263 of Cr.P.C. and the recording of the plea and thereafter evidence, indicate that the same cannot be said to be a summary trial at all, nor has the case been registered as summary case. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 18th January, 2010. Thereafter, below Exh.66, the accused’s affidavit as examination-in-chief is taken on record. Thereafter, as per Exh.73, the accused have produced documentary evidences and Exh.74 is an application for summoning witnesses, which has been partly granted and at Exh.82, the accused witnesses have been examined. Thus, the detailed proceedings and procedure adopted in the case has been recorded by the trial Court and trial Court has recorded that the case had not been conducted as a summary case at all and Court has also recorded that there are all the efforts on the part of the accused in prolonging the case. 11. It is indeed unfortunate that after recording the aforesaid clear findings, the Court instead of dismissing Exh.150 application, found itself bound by the provisions, which were not applicable at all. The Court has taken into consideration the provision of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and found that the reasoning for not trying the case summarily was not recorded, though the case has not been conducted in a summary fashion. The Court has taken into consideration the provision of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and found that the reasoning for not trying the case summarily was not recorded, though the case has not been conducted in a summary fashion. In absence of any such order under Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the case is one to be tried as summons case and not as summary and relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Vishnu Hargovandas Patel (Supra), the Court has come to the conclusion that the case is required to be tried denovo and accordingly the order is passed. In my view, this order is required to be quashed and set aside, as the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr. (Supra) is not being construed properly and therefore, the resultant error has occurred. The entire reading of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, nowhere suggest, even remotely, that when in a given case, the plea is recorded, as if it is not a summary case and the evidences taken by different Magistrate treating the case not to be summary case, at that time, the accused cannot be permitted to fall back upon the fact that the Court has not passed specific order of conducting the matter as regular trial and not summary. 12. This Court is of the view that if the requirement of recording reasons for passing formal order is said to be vitiating the otherwise proper trial, then, it will be travesty of justice and it will be taken advantage of unscrupulous litigant and accused in prolonging the trial. Therefore, that provision is to be taken as merely an enabling provision so as not to compel the Court to order denovo trial or to conduct the denovo trial. The Division Bench’s judgment cited in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., (Supra) which was given after appropriate reference made by the Court has put an end to the controversy and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. Hence, this application being Special Criminal Application No.2171 of 2012 is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. Hence, this application being Special Criminal Application No.2171 of 2012 is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. The trial Court shall proceed from the stage when Exh.150 application was made and conduct the trial, as if, Exh.150 application was never made and it was never allowed by the Court. In other words, the trial shall start from that stage and be completed as expeditiously as possible. 13. In view of the order passed in main matter i.e. Special Criminal Application No.2171 of 2012, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13305 of 2012 would not survive. 14. The office is directed to place copy of this order in each matter. Application allowed.