9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. In revision, the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability. 2. According to case, the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In proceeding, petitioner/accused has preferred an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., contending that there is money transaction of Rs. 1,48,000/- between the parties regarding B.C. and in this regard he has issued three cheques of Allahabad bank, Branch Madhatal. Subsequently, he has repaid the same to the complainant by cash or cheque mode. But, complainant had not returned back the cheques which were given by the petitioner earlier. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant to the petitioner/ accused on 08.03.2013 regarding three cheques. 5. The complainant/respondent has opposed the application filed by the petitioner/accused and submits that the complainant is not cross examined yet, thus, he has not expressed any consent or denial, regarding the above said documents. It is principle of law that prior to cross examination of the complainant, accused/petitioner can not pray for producing the documents from the complainant on his defence. He further submits that the application filed by the petitioner is having no cause and only to delay the trial. 6. After considering the averments made in the application, and looking to the submissions of both the parties, the learned trial Court came to this con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his contention, he has relied the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Amarnath and others Vs. State of Harayana and another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2185. He has also relied the judgments of this High Court in the case of Gaytri Bais Vs. State of MP reported in 1991 (1) MPLJ 444 and Shivendra Dhakre Vs. Narendra Sharma reported in 2017 (3) JLJ 325. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that complainant is not cross examined by the accused yet. Thus, at this stage, complainant can not be compelled to produce such type of documents in support of defence of accused. He further submits that complainant has already stated that he is an agriculturist and he does not pay any income tax and he has never given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority." 12. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is reflected that the Court is empowered to call any documents which is necessary to fair proceeding of the case. The Court can issue summons to the person whom possession the desirable documents are kept. The powers which has given to under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and same can be exercised judiciously and in proper manner. 13. In the case of Om Prakash Sharma Vs. CBI Delhi reported in (2000) 5 SCC 679 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "The powers conferred under Section 91 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the Court or any officer in charge of a Police Station concerned to enforce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndertaking a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence or collecting materials, as if during the course or after trial vide Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4. Ultimately, this would always depend upon the facts of each case and it would be difficult to lay down a rule of universal application and for all times. The fact that in one case the Court thought fit to exercise such powers is no compelling circumstance to do so in all and every case before it, as a matter of course and for the mere asking. The Court concerned must be allowed a large latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion and unless in a given case the Court was found to have conducted itself in so demonstrably a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thdrawn the same. He has also requested before the trial Court to call the income tax return documents of the complainant from year 2011 to 2015. He has also requested to call a copy of registered notice, earlier sent by the complainant to the petitioner on 08.03.2014. Thus, in short it can be said that the petitioner wants to call the aforesaid bank statements to determine the source of income of the complainant. Further it appears that the alleged transaction is 4,42,000/- and by calling income tax return documents, accused wants to bring this fact in knowledge of the Court that if the complainant is capable to give the same then certainly he would have filed an income tax return. It is also necessary to this Court to think about this fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
