Supreme Court bars remand of completed trial for mere procedural lapse

The case concerns a dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the appellant (complainant) challenged a High Court order that remanded a completed trial for fresh proceedings based on a procedural lapse regarding evidence.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Sanu Varghese (Complainant); Respondent: Shoukkathali (Accused); Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• The Court set aside the High Court's order that had remanded the matter for fresh trial.
• The Court restored Criminal Revision Petition No. 715 of 2023 to the files of the High Court for consideration on its own merits.
• The Court directed that the evidence led at the initial trial shall only be considered if the Trial Court had examined the accused in person; otherwise, such evidence shall be eschewed.
• The appeal was allowed.
• Any pending applications were rejected.

Also in the document

• The Court held that a completed trial cannot be remanded merely for a procedural lapse without proof of prejudice to the accused.
• The Court noted that the accused had not alleged prejudice before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court.
• The Court observed that the accused's claim of the complainant's absence was not supported by substantive evidence, such as Call Data Records.