2021 (2) TMI 509 - HC - Indian Laws

Summon of complainant to produce the documents - relevancy of the documents sought by accused No.2 - HELD THAT - When the documents are already marked and are part of the Trial Court records and witness has been cross-examined by the defence counsel, filing of the application for summoning of the documents does not arise and while marking the documents also not disputed the same. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merit in this petition. The Trial Judge has pointed out that the resolution is already marked as Ex.P.18 and though it is observed that those documents are relevant but relevancy of the documents has not been explained and when the documents are already on record, the question of summoning the complainant to produce those documents does not arise. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside Trial Court's order rejecting application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of specific documents in a case related to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Relevance of Documents:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sought specific documents to substantiate the claim. The accused filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. requesting the production of various original documents, including the Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, board resolution, invoices, challans, and tax-related documents. The Trial Court rejected the application, stating that the certified copy of the board resolution was sufficient, and other documents were not necessary. The petitioner argued that the original board resolution and supply-related documents were crucial for deciding the case on merits. The respondent contended that the documents had already been marked as exhibits during the trial, and the application was a delay tactic after cross-examining the witness.

2. Judicial Analysis:
Upon hearing both parties, the High Court examined the records and found that the documents in question had already been marked as exhibits (Exs.P.20 to 33) before the Trial Court. The defense had not objected to their marking during the trial, and the witness had been cross-examined. The High Court noted that since the documents were part of the trial records and their relevancy had not been adequately explained by the accused, there was no merit in summoning the complainant to produce these documents. The Trial Judge's observation that the documents were relevant was acknowledged, but without proper explanation of their relevance by the accused, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to reject the application.

3. Final Decision:
After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The High Court emphasized that when documents are already on record, and their relevancy not adequately explained, there is no need to summon the complainant to produce them. The High Court concluded that the Trial Judge's decision was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper explanation of the relevance of documents and the lack of merit in summoning already marked documents during the trial proceedings.