2014 (1) TMI 1926 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - whether the cheques were given for the purpose of security? - status of applicant to lent such a huge amount required to be proved - HELD THAT - If a person claims that a huge amount is lent to another person then to show his case, he has to prove that he had the status to lent a huge amount to anyone. It is for the applicant to produce the documents or file an affidavit that he never filed any income tax return in income tax department or he never kept any account books of his transaction, still he is liable to file the copy of bank accounts of last two years as required by the accused. For acceptance of a revision, it is to be shown by the applicant that any illegality or perversity is done by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant could not show that any illegality or perversity was done by the trial Court in passing such order and therefore, on factual position only, the revisions filed by the applicants cannot be accepted. The revisions filed by the applicants are hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to orders under section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
- Jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal revisions.
- Requirement of documents to establish status in cheque dishonor cases.
- Burden of proof on the applicant regarding the transaction amount.
- Assessment of applicant's status through income tax returns and account books.
- Criteria for acceptance of a revision based on illegality or perversity in trial court order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves two criminal revision cases challenging orders under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. related to complaints of dishonored cheques. The applications filed by the respondent seeking the applicant's income tax returns, account books, and bank account details were accepted by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur.

2. The complainant alleged dishonor of cheques worth Rs. 50 Lacs and Rs. 5 Lacs, with the respondent questioning the applicant's capacity to receive such amounts without bank transactions. The respondent requested the last 5 years' income tax returns, account books, and bank account copies for verification.

3. Despite the absence of the respondent during the revision hearing, the learned JMFC, Jabalpur accepted the applications under section 91 of the Cr.P.C., prompting the revision before the High Court.

4. The High Court highlighted the need for parties to approach the lowest court first before filing criminal revisions directly. However, in cases of criminal revisions, both the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, necessitating the High Court's consideration.

5. The applicant's counsel argued against the necessity of providing documents under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for the applicant to prove the transaction details and his capacity to lend Rs. 55 Lacs to the accused.

6. The court stressed that the applicant must establish his financial status through income tax returns, account books, and bank statements to support the claim of lending a substantial amount. Failure to provide such evidence may lead to the presumption that the cheques were not due to the applicant.

7. The judgment clarified that for a revision to be accepted, the applicant must demonstrate illegality or perversity in the trial court's order. As the applicant failed to show any such issues, the revisions were dismissed, affirming the orders of the learned JMFC, Jabalpur.

8. The High Court directed the applicant to submit an affidavit if the required documents do not exist, emphasizing the importance of proving financial capacity in cases of alleged transactions involving significant amounts. The trial court was informed to ensure compliance with the order.