JUDGMENT R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred these appeals under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.10.2016 rendered by learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat below Exh.160 in Criminal Case No.1048 of 2003 and below Exh.165 in Criminal Case No.1049 of 2003. The said cases were registered against the respondents original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that he possesses a licence of money lending. Since the complainant and the accused belonged to the same community, he advanced money to the accused time and again. In the month of May 2003, cheque nos.662930 & 662932 amounting to Rs. 700000/- dated 28.05.2003 were discounted by the accused from the complainant and after discounting the cheques, the remaining amount was paid to the accused. Thereafter, the cheques were deposited by the complainant in the bank which came to be dishonored with an endorsement as 'account closed". Thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to which the accused gave an evasive reply and did not pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Magistrate, Surat. 3. After registration of the complaint, the summons was issued to the respondents and the respondents remained present. Thereafter, preliminary statement of the respondents was recorded in which the respondents denied the allegation levelled against them and requested to try the case. 3.1 In order to prove the case, both the sides produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the complainant, further statement of accused was recorded. The accused denied the case and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents accused. 3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.10.2016 rendered by learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat below Exh.160 in Criminal Case No.1048 of 2003 and below Exh.165 in Criminal Case No.1049 of 2003, the appellant has preferred the present appeals before this Court. 4. This Court, while entertaining the appeals, passed following order:- "Mr. 4. This Court, while entertaining the appeals, passed following order:- "Mr. Daifraz Havewalla, learned advocate for the appellant submits that as regard issue raised for determination, though the learned Magistrate has recorded findings in affirmative but dismissed the complaint on the grounds that relevant documents of accounts were not produced. Mr. Daifraz Havewalla, learned advocate for the appellant further submits that the relevant documents of accounts were already submitted at Exh:51. However, the learned Magistrate did not look into it. He therefore, submits that the decision of the learned magistrate is not based upon the evidence on record and the same is required to be remanded for considering the above mentioned documents. In view of above, issue notice for final disposal returnable on 27th February, 2017. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent-State." 4.1 Thereafter, while admitting the appeals on 01.11.2018, this Court passed following order:- "1. Let the appeal be ADMITTED. 2. The formal service of notice of admission is waived by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Krina Calla for and on behalf of the respondent State. 3. Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith for preparing the paperbook, possibly the same shall be prepared within a period of four weeks, so as to reach this Court on or before December 11, 2018. 4. The paperbook shall be supplied to the learned advocates for respective parties." 4.2 Consequently, on 18.12.2018, this Court passed following order:- "Previously, this bench and previous two benches thought it fit that since the documents were already tendered by the complainant by way of producing the list but the same remained to be exhibited, tentative view of three benches was to remand the matter in order to afford the reasonable and fair trial to be faced by both the sides. However, learned advocate Mr. Panchal wants to conduct the matter on merits, though this Court prima facie opined that if there would be any lapse on part of either the complainant or his advocate in facing the separate proceedings before this Court, the cost would be awarded and that is acceptable to him. In consequence thereof, let the matter, as to whether it should be remanded or not, should be decided on merits as demanded by learned advocate Mr. Panchal. In consequence thereof, let the matter, as to whether it should be remanded or not, should be decided on merits as demanded by learned advocate Mr. Panchal. On that point, there is no question of awarding any compensation or cost as suggested by this Court. Learned trial court is directed to send the paper-book within a period of 10 days. List on 27.12.2018." 5. Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the appellant-complainant argued that the learned trial court dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant failed to produce on record a licence of money lending, income-tax returns indicating the transactions in question as well as promissory note, though the record & proceedings clearly indicates that the complainant had produced either xerox copy or certified copy of the aforesaid documents, but it could not be exhibited and consequently therefore, the complainant had not been given fair trial for producing and proving the documents. In view thereof, she argued that the judgment rendered by the learned trial court is violative of principle of nature justice which is not sustainable in law. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal for the respondents accused pointed out that since the complainant had not taken due care of proving such documents at the stage of trial, now for filling up such lacuna, this Court should not order for filling up the lacuna by way of affording second trial to the complainant. 7. On going through the factual scenario, reasons assigned by the learned trial court as well as documents produced at Exhs.3 & 81, it appears that the documents were produced by the complainant, however the learned trial court, though put the question to the complainant in the cross-examination, failed to get the said documents exhibited, due to which, the documents were not taken into consideration while delivering the judgment. In that view of the matter, without commenting any further either on part of learned advocate appearing for the complainant or learned advocate appearing for the respondents accused, this lacuna or procedural lapses before the learned trial court could be cured by way of affording limited reasonable opportunity to both the sides by allowing the aforesaid documents already produced before the learned trial court to be exhibited by following due procedure as laid down in the criminal procedure code as well as Evidence Act. Thereafter, the learned trial court, after affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides, shall render the decision on merits. 8. The record & proceedings also clearly indicates that the respondents accused faced the present proceedings before this Court due to some lapses on part of the complainant while conducting the trial. In that view of the matter, in both the cases, the complainant shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- each towards litigation cost of the accused for facing the present proceedings before this Court within a period of 30 days which shall be given to the accused. The learned trial court shall afford reasonable opportunity of providing such documents either certified or in original copy to the complainant. Even the accused shall be at liberty to produce any document in their defence at the discretion of the learned trial court. Both the parties shall cooperate in the proceedings before the learned trial court. The learned trial court shall conclude the trial & hearing as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. 9. In view of above, both the appeals stand disposed of. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.10.2016 rendered by learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat below Exh.160 in Criminal Case No.1048 of 2003 and below Exh.165 in Criminal Case No.1049 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. 11. Original accused No.2 being a lady shall be given dispensation from her presence during trial in accordance with Section 205 unless her presence is needed. 12. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, but only decided the issue to the above extent.