Summons-trial irregularity in a cheque case cannot justify de novo trial after substantial participation without timely objection.

A revisional direction for a de novo trial in a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was held unsustainable where the case had been conducted as a summons trial, the accused had participated without timely objection, and the proceedings had substantially advanced on merits. The absence of a specific order under section 143 did not justify nullifying the trial, because any procedural defect was curable and no prejudice was shown. The de novo order was set aside, the trial court's refusal to order a fresh trial was restored, and the matter was allowed to continue from the stage then reached for expeditious disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order directing de novo trial was sustainable when the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had proceeded as a summons trial and the accused had participated in the proceedings without objection until the trial had substantially progressed.

Analysis: The complaint was treated and conducted as a summons case, the plea was recorded, the complainant's evidence was filed and the witnesses were examined, and the accused was afforded opportunity in the proceedings. The objection to procedure was raised only at a late stage. In such circumstances, the absence of a specific order under section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not justify nullifying the entire trial and ordering a fresh one. The irregularity, if any, was curable and could not be used to undo proceedings that had substantially advanced on merits.

Conclusion: The direction for de novo trial was not sustainable and was set aside; the trial court's order rejecting de novo trial was restored.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were permitted to continue from the stage at which they stood, and the magistrate was directed to conclude the matter expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who participates in a trial conducted as a summons case without timely objection cannot, at the fag end of the proceedings, insist on de novo trial on the ground of procedural irregularity, especially where the defect is curable and no prejudice is shown.

---