9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt with regard to sell of food-grains and statement of the bank account from 2014-2016 may be summoned from the respondent complainant. After hearing both the parties, the JMFC vide impugned order dated 04/10/2018, rejected the application filed by petitioner-accused u/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. Being dissatisfied, petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court, by filing this petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Counsel for the petitioner accused contends that the view taken by the learned JMFC in rejecting the application is patently erroneous as respondent complainant in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that the amount given to petitioner from his account by receiving the same in his account, which was earlier deposited after selling f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner may summon these documents at the stage of defence in order to confront the same which is contrary and foreign to law. Hence, it is prayed that the same deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the petition is opposed by the counsel appearing for respondent, who submits that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order because it is the complainant who has to prove his case and petitioner cannot direct or compel him to either lead the evidence or submit proof as per his own choice. Production of he documents may be relevant in the Civil Court, but may not be so in the criminal case filed u/s. 138 of the NI Act. This is because of the presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in question and complainant is not un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the money to the accused; that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant." 7. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Umesh Kumar Agrawal by order dated 19.7.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4188/2017 has observed as under:-- "Thus, it is clear that in order to draw presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is required to discharge his initial burden. Therefore, it is for the complainant to decide that in what manner, he would like to prove its case. The accused cannot direct the complainant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
