JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Both these revisions involve common question of law and facts and are thus being decided by this single order. 2. The petitioner Excise Department lodged five different complaints in the Court of the CJM, Churu against the respondent Govind Ram and two more persons for the offences under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 I.P.C. in relation to dishonour of five cheques issued by the accused in favour of the Excise Department for a total sum of about Rs.1,18,00,000/-. The learned trial court, took cognizance of both the offences by order dated 22.6.2001 (Complaint Case No.435/2001 & Revision No.329/2017] and 23.10.2001 (Complaint Case No.758/2001 & Revision No.267/17] respectively and summoned the accused to face trial for these offences. 3. Upon appearance of the accused before the trial court, proceedings were carried further and on 18.2.2002, the learned trial court proceeded to orally read out the charges for offences under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act and 420 I.P.C. to the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The order dated 18.2.2002 reads as under: ^^18&2&2002 ifjoknh ds vf/koDrk miŒA eqyfteku miŒA eqyfte xksfoUnjke] Hkaojyky] HkkxhjFk }kjk vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk Jh lqjs'k mifLFkr ftUgksusa vfHk;qDrx.k dh tekur dk izkkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k cgl lquh xbZ udy fnykbZ x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd eqyfteku viuh vk;Unk gktjh mifLFkfr ckcr 5]000 :i;s tekur o blh jkf'k dk eqpydk is'k dj rLnhd djok;s rks tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA eqrkfcd vkns'k tekur eqpyds is'k fd;s ckn rLnhd 'kkfey i=koyh jgsA eqyftekuksa dk vUrxZr /kkjk 138 ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ,oa /kkjk 420 HkkŒnaŒlŒ dk ekSf[kd vkjksi lquk;k eqyftekuksa us lqu le>dj bUdkj fd;k rFkk vUoh{kk pkgh i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnukad 5&4&2002 dks is'k gksA** 4. The offence under Section 420 I.P.C. carries sentence upto 7 years and thus evidently, the trial court should have recorded precharge evidence before framing charge against the accused because the case was instituted on a complaint and the procedure of Sections 244/245 Cr.P.C. was required to be followed but it appears that the Presiding Officer, the Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the defence could not notice this apparent flaw in procedure. No protest whatsoever was made either by the prosecution or the defence regarding the apparent irregularity in the proceedings and this apparent procedural illegality/irregularity went unnoticed during the trial. No protest whatsoever was made either by the prosecution or the defence regarding the apparent irregularity in the proceedings and this apparent procedural illegality/irregularity went unnoticed during the trial. However, while finally deciding the matter, the trial court recorded a categoric finding at page 2 of its judgment dated 28.6.2005 that simultaneous prosecution was impermissible for the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 420 I.P.C. and thus, the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. was dropped and the respondent Govind Ram was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by separate judgments dated 28.6.2005 passed in the two complaints referred to supra. The two co-accused Bhanwar Lal and Bhagirath were acquitted. The accused respondent Govind Ram preferred separate appeals against both the judgments in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu who, while deciding the appeals by separate judgments dated 6.9.2016 held that the learned Magistrate acted in a grossly illegal manner while proceeding in the case because charge for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was framed against the accused in warrant cases instituted on complaints without following the mandatory requirement of recording pre-charge evidence as per Section 244 Cr.P.C. That apart, no opportunity of advancing charge arguments was given to the accused as per Section 245 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the accused were accepted and while setting aside the trial Court’s judgment, the matter was remanded for complying with the mandate of Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. and to hold denovo trial and to decide both the cases afresh within a period of three months. The Excise Department has approached this Court by way of these two revisions for assailing the judgments dated 6.9.2016 passed by the appellate court in Cr.Appeal No.12/2009 (32/2005) and 10/2009 (30/2005). 5. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Unquestionably, the trial court committed a gross procedural irregularity whilst considering the aspect of charges against the accused. 5. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Unquestionably, the trial court committed a gross procedural irregularity whilst considering the aspect of charges against the accused. Manifestly, the complaints were filed for the offences under Sections 138 of N.I.Act and 420 I.P.C. and as such, cases were in the nature of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a Police report and the trial thereof had to be conducted as per the procedure provided under Chapter XIXB of the Cr.P.C. As per Section 244 Cr.p.C., recording of pre-charge evidence was mandatory, which was not done by the trial court. Further, the accused was not provided any opportunity of advancing charge arguments as well. Thus, the proceedings were certainly irregular and bordered almost to the fringe of illegality. However, the question to be examined is whether any prejudice was caused thereby to the accused who were required to be cognizant of this flaw in procedure and should have raised this objection at the initial stage. However apparently, without any objection being raised in this regard, the proceedings were allowed to culminate with this irregularity probably with the objective that advantage could be claimed at a later stage. 7. True it is that complaints were submitted by the Excise Department in the CJM Court, Churu for the offences under Sections 138 of N.I.Act and 420 I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken for these offences and as mentioned above, the trial court read out these very charges to the accused orally but at no stage of the proceedings, did the accused or the prosecution raise any objection about this apparent flaw in the proceedings. Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any stage in case the charge is groundless. As the complaint was filed with the simple allegation of dishonour of cheque, apparently, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was not made out from the admitted allegations of the complainant department. The accused did not raise any objection against oral reading out of charges by the trial court at any stage during the trial. As the complaint was filed with the simple allegation of dishonour of cheque, apparently, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was not made out from the admitted allegations of the complainant department. The accused did not raise any objection against oral reading out of charges by the trial court at any stage during the trial. While deciding the case finally, the trial court dropped the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. observing that the offences under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and Section 420 I.P.C. could not be tried together and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. Since the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. was dropped by the trial court, apparently, no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the accused by the so-called irregularity/illegality committed by the trial court while framing the charge and conducting the trial without following the procedure laid down in Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. The irregularity could have been considered fatal had the trial court convicted the accused for a warrant triable offence i.e. Section 420 I.P.C. without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the trial court should have remained cognizant of the allegations set out in the complaint and only accusation under Section 138 of the N.I.Act should have been read out to the accused. At the same time, prejudice caused if any by reading out of the charge for a warrant triable offence without recording pre-charge evidence should have been pleaded by the accused at that very stage. However, the accused deliberately did not raise the plea of prejudice at any stage before the trial court and conveniently faced trial without a murmur whatsoever. It is the only at the appellate stage, that the accused tried to take undue advantage of the procedural irregularity committed by the trial court and sought acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. 8. As per the allegations leveled in the five identical complaints filed against the accused respondent Govind Ram, he gave five cheques for a total amount of Rs.1,18,00,000/- to the Excise Department for liability relating to the year 2001. All the five cheques were dishonoured upon being presented as the account holder i.e. Govind Ram had closed his bank account. Five separate complaints were filed before the CJM, Churu. All the five cheques were dishonoured upon being presented as the account holder i.e. Govind Ram had closed his bank account. Five separate complaints were filed before the CJM, Churu. The protracted trial took almost 4 years to conclude and finally, the trial court dropped the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. holding that the same was wrongly applied. Apparently thus, the accused cannot claim prejudice from the so-called irregularity in the proceedings conducted by the trial court as no actual harm/loss was caused to him thereby and the moment, charge under Section 420 I.P.C. was dropped, the defect stood cured. As a matter of fact, if denovo trial is directed, prejudice would definitely be caused to the complainant which is a State Government Department because a fresh trial at this belated stage after almost 17 years would clearly result into a cake walk for the accused as most of the departmental witnesses might have retired in the intervening period or might not be otherwise available for giving evidence. The accused would virtually get a default exoneration in the matters even though he is responsible for dishonour of cheques given to a government department for a huge sum in excess of one crore rupees. 9. In background of above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellate court’s judgments dated 6.9.2016 passed in both the appeals whereby the trial court’s judgments were set aside and the matters were remanded for denovo trials, are grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. 10. The revisions thus succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgments dated 6.9.2016 passed by the appellate court in Cr.Appeals No.12/2009 (32/2005) and 10/2009 (30/2005) are set aside and the matters are remanded to the appellate court for fresh decision of the appeals. The appeals shall be restored to their original number. The accused respondent shall appear before the Sessions Court on or before 30.11.2017. The appellate court shall rehear the arguments advanced by the parties and decide the appeals afresh on merits as directed above. The matters upon remand shall be decided within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Record be returned to the court concerned forthwith. 12. A copy of this order be placed in both the files.