2016 (5) TMI 729 - HC - Indian Laws

Negotiable Instrument Act - denial of chance to summons an officer from the Income Tax Department - Held that - The cross-examination undertaken by the petitioner and the complainant was also thoroughly considered and there does not appear to be any pointed question in relation to ledger account. It is not the case for the cross-examination of the petitioner that this is concocted document. Matter is still to be adjudicated, as the revisional Court has pointed out. The trial Court is required to see the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act while deciding the case of the complainant. Eventually, it is for the trial Court to decide as to what reliance is to be placed upon such document which is already proved and deserves appreciation at the time of final adjudication. If the Court comes to a conclusion that such document is concocted, the course is open to prosecute the concerned person for production of such document. Petitioner in any case can argue before the court concerned in that regard. Moreover, if such document is relied upon by the Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same before the Appellate Forum as well. However, at this stage, in absence of any specific cross-examination being made in relation to 6th page of the ledger account. No case is made out for interfering with the orders of both the Courts below. Hence, this petition stands dismissed .

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to trial court order on production of ledger account in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order regarding the production of a ledger account in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner argued that the documents submitted, including the ledger account, were not genuine, specifically mentioning that page 6 of the documents was concocted. The petitioner requested the summons of a responsible officer from the Income Tax Department to verify the authenticity of the documents. However, the trial court denied the request, stating that no sufficient reason was provided for such summons. The court also noted that the petitioner had cross-examined witnesses on the documents, emphasizing the importance of the partner's signature on the cheque in matters under Section 138. The revisional court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the petitioner's application seemed to be a delay tactic, leading to the rejection of the revision application.

The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, requesting the quashing of the revisional court's order and the issuance of witness-summons. The petitioner's advocate argued that the denial of the opportunity to summon an officer from the Income Tax Department had seriously jeopardized the accused's rights. However, after hearing both parties and examining the material on record, the High Court found that there was no specific cross-examination questioning the authenticity of the ledger account. The court emphasized that the trial court needed to consider the requirements of Section 138 while deciding the case and determine the reliability of the documents during final adjudication. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to cooperate in the trial court's final hearing.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence challenging the authenticity of the ledger account. The court highlighted the importance of following the legal procedures and presenting relevant evidence during trial proceedings. The petitioner was advised to participate in the trial court proceedings and raise any concerns regarding the documents at the appropriate stage of the legal process.