Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (3) TMI 925 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
- Challenge to rejection of application for calling original statement of account from the bank
- Challenge to rejection of application for producing the bank passbook
- Interpretation of Section 91 and Section 311 of CrPC
- Application of legal principles regarding summoning of witnesses and additional evidence

Analysis:
The judgment by the MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT dealt with two petitions filed by the same petitioner challenging orders passed by the JMFC in a criminal case related to dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner sought to call the original statement of account and produce the bank passbook to prove the dishonour of the cheque. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the applications was erroneous, citing provisions of Section 311 of CrPC and relevant case laws. The respondent opposed the petitions, arguing that the trial court did not err in rejecting the applications as the evidence sought to be produced was not essential for a just decision.

The Court analyzed Section 91 and Section 311 of CrPC, highlighting the powers of the Court to compel production of documents and summon witnesses. Referring to legal precedents, including the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized the need for exercising discretion judiciously and ensuring that additional evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court noted that the discretion to summon documents or witnesses rests with the trial court, and interference by the High Court should only occur for valid reasons.

Ultimately, the Court found that the rejection of the applications by the trial court was not manifestly erroneous. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the discretion of the trial court in summoning documents or witnesses. The Court concluded that the objections raised by the petitioner were irrelevant to the case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, as the Court declined to interfere based on the analysis of the legal provisions and principles discussed in the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates