M/S New Bhagwati Packers And Another vs. Anita Goyal

Held

The High Court held that the petition did not deserve to be allowed. While acknowledging the petitioners' right to cross-examine the respondent and her witnesses, and to confront them with documents, the Court found that this did not entitle them to summon a witness at the stage when the respondent was producing her evidence. The Court noted that the petitioners sought to produce GST 3B returns, which could be done by the petitioners themselves, rather than by summoning a GST official. The Court also observed that the petitioners had been asked to place a copy of the GST 3B return on record on 21.05.2024 but had failed to do so. The Court found no merit in the argument that confronting the respondent with GST 3B returns was necessary to prove that no amount was outstanding, as such returns could be produced at the defence stage. The Court concluded that the Magistrate had passed a speaking and well-reasoned order, and therefore, dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s New Bhagwati Packers and another, filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. The Magistrate had dismissed an application by the petitioners seeking to summon an official from the GST Department, Ludhiana, along with GST 3B returns for the period October 2019 to September 2020. This application was made during the evidence-producing stage of a complaint filed by the respondent, Anita Goyal, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent's complaint alleged dishonoured cheques issued by the petitioners in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The Magistrate dismissed the application, stating the petitioners could produce such records during their defence evidence stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioners' application for summoning a GST official and GST 3B returns, thereby violating the petitioners' right to a fair trial and to confront the complainant with relevant evidence, contrary to the principles of natural justice? The petitioners argued that the Magistrate's order was cryptic, non-speaking, and lacked judicious application of mind. They contended that the GST 3B returns were crucial for proving their defence and confronting the complainant, and denying them this opportunity would prejudice their case. They asserted that the production of these records and their confrontation with the complainant was essential for a just decision. The respondent did not file any reply or appear before the High Court, thus presenting no arguments.