2022 (3) TMI 744 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - insufficient funds - burden to prove - framing of charge or trial - section 91 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not denied his signature on the cheque in question. The most important aspect of the matter as to whether complainant is under an obligation to produce documents at the behest of petitioner or not. From the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by Hon ble Apex Court in John K. Abraham vs. Simon C. Abraham 2014 (1) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT it is crystal clear that the initial burden is on the complainant to discharge that he had paid the amount to petitioner accused and it cannot be said that petitioner who is facing trial under Section 138 of the NI Act is within his right to say that unless and until documents so wanted by him from respondent complainant are produced petitioner accused would not cross-examine respondent-complainant or his witness(s). It is for the respondent to decide that in what way he would like to prosecute his case. Petitioner-accused cannot direct or compel respondent complainant to either lead the evidence or submit proof as per his own choice or wishes. Since the trial Court has exercised its discretion and has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-u/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. this Court does not find it to be a fit case warranting interference u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning documents by the trial court.
2. Burden of proof on complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Discretion of the trial court in summoning documents and cross-examination.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a challenge against the order of a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) dismissing an application filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused for summoning documents from the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the documents were necessary for a just decision, but the JMFC rejected the application, leading to the appeal before the High Court.

2. The petitioner argued that the complainant had admitted crucial facts in cross-examination, making the documents essential for the trial. The petitioner claimed that the complaint regarding the dishonour of the cheque was improbable as the amount was not the actual source of funds for the complainant. The petitioner relied on precedents where courts had remanded matters to summon documents for a fair trial. However, the respondent opposed, stating that the complainant only needed to prove the cheque transaction, and the burden of proof lay with the complainant, not the accused.

3. The High Court, after considering arguments from both sides and relevant case law, highlighted that the burden of proof initially rested on the complainant in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court emphasized that the accused could not compel the complainant to produce documents at will. The court cited legal precedents to support the view that the complainant had the discretion on how to prove the case and that the accused could not dictate the evidence submission process. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that there was no error in rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., as the trial court had not abused its discretion. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of substance.