https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257924 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the mere fact that a successor Magistrate delivers judgment does not by itself justify a de novo trial. Section 326(3) CrPC applies only if the proceedings were in substance tried summarily; where the record shows elaborate evidence, full cross-examination, and detailed appreciation, the case is not treated as a true summary trial. A retrial is an exceptional remedy and should be ordered only where grave prejudice, failure of justice, or an incurable defect is shown. Mechanical remand without examining the trial record is legally flawed, and appellate courts must independently assess whether continuation of the trial is permissible. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Oct 2021 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257924 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the mere fact that a successor Magistrate delivers judgment does not by itself justify a de novo trial. Section 326(3) CrPC applies only if the proceedings were in substance tried summarily; where the record shows elaborate evidence, full cross-examination, and detailed appreciation, the case is not treated as a true summary trial. A retrial is an exceptional remedy and should be ordered only where grave prejudice, failure of justice, or an incurable defect is shown. Mechanical remand without examining the trial record is legally flawed, and appellate courts must independently assess whether continuation of the trial is permissible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257924