De novo rehearing not required when evidence was fully recorded; matter proceeds from the existing stage.

A successor magistrate is required to rehear a matter afresh only where the earlier proceedings were conducted as a summary trial and the evidence was not fully recorded. Where the evidence has already been recorded in full, the rule for de novo hearing does not apply, and there is no basis to direct fresh recording of evidence merely on that footing. On that principle, the direction for de novo recording of evidence was held unsustainable, the matter was allowed to proceed from the stage then reached, and the request to add another person as an accused in the complaint was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing de novo recording of evidence in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the footing that the matter was a summary trial when the evidence had in fact been recorded in full.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed that the proceedings were not recorded in a summary manner but in full. The rule requiring a successor magistrate to rehear the case afresh applies to summary trials where the predecessor magistrate has partly heard the matter. That principle had no application where the evidence had already been fully recorded, and there was therefore no basis to compel a fresh trial from the beginning.

Conclusion: The direction for de novo recording of evidence was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and the matter was permitted to continue from the stage at which it then stood, while the application seeking addition of another person to the complaint was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decision restores the trial court process from the existing stage and rejects the request to expand the complaint against an additional person.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of a fresh hearing by a successor magistrate arises only in a summary trial where evidence has been recorded summarily; if the evidence has been recorded in full, de novo re-hearing is not warranted on that ground.

---