u/s 91 Cr.P.C
Advocate.S.A.Siddiq
(Querist) 29 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
In cheque case, accused filed petition u/s 91 Cr.P.C for order to produce the documents of complainant.
Complainant reply to the court - the accused cannot entitled the documents from complainant u/s 91 cr.pc ... is it correct or not ?
citation:-
DATED: 24.06.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM
CRL.R.C.No.1016 of 2008
A.V.Anbu Chezhian .. Petitioner/accused
Versus
P.Ambikadass .. Respondent/complainant
Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1438 of 2008 in
C.C.No.11 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vedarnayam, dated 01.07.2008. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Vijayakumaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sathiamurthi
- - - - -
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.11 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vedarnayam and the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein filed an application before the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C., summoning documents such as bills, accounts and income-tax returns relating to the period 1995-2004 to be produced by the complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had preferred this criminal revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the complaint, the cheque was given by the petitioner to the respondent and the cheque amount was Rs.10,50,000/-. The petitioner/accused was doing business with the respondent/complainant for the past ten years and he had paid all the dues and only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is due. The blank cheque which was given by the petitioner herein to the respondent as security had been misused by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though a
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises with regard to the liability, no presumption could be drawn for the existence of the legally recoverable debt and the accused is also entitled to prove his defence that there is no legally recoverable debt. To prove the innocence of the accused, the documents are required. It is the duty of the complainant to show how there is a legally recoverable debt and he should have maintained an account for the business transaction and it should have been reflected in the
income tax account also. As such, duty is cast upon the complainant to produce the documents, but the learned
Magistrate by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner has caused a prejudice to the accused and it
also hinders the defence case.
3. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008(1)
Crimes 227 (SC) (Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Pattatraya G.Hegde).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate being an interlocutory order, no revision lies before this Court and also relied on the decision of
the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009(2) Crimes 1 (SC) (Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam).
A.V.Anbu Chezhian vs P.Ambikadass on 24 June, 2010
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 29 April 2011
Pray to court that accused is not asking the document for his benefit but for the want of justice, their production in court is necessary for the proper distribution of justice. If court rejects the application file revision. It is another thing, if the document are not in the possession of complainant.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 29 April 2011
Accused can very well demand those documents to be relied upon in his case on court file so that he may bring his due defence.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 29 April 2011
no.. the complainant have to issue his all documents's copy(which he filing in his case) to the accused
Guest
(Expert) 30 April 2011
Totally wrong. On the request of the accused the court can order for the production of the document u/s 91 CrPC, otherwise, how the accused can be expected to defend himself blind-folded without verifying the correctness of the complaint without reference to the document?
Amit Minocha
(Expert) 01 May 2011
he can very well ask for documents from the complainant in the interest of justice, if complainant refuses so an adverse inference may come into play against complainant thus diluting prov of section 139 NIA
