Gyanita (Wrongly Mentioned As Gayneeta In The Order Sheet) vs. Avinash Rai

Facts

The petitioner, Gyanita, is facing a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant averred in his examination-in-chief that the petitioner purchased goods for which a GST number was indicated on the sale bill. The petitioner's defense is that no such transaction occurred. To substantiate this defense, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to summon certified copies of documents including the complainant's firm's GST registration, bank account details, sale bills with GST return particulars, and the company's audit report for the financial year 2018-2019. The learned JMFC Korba rejected this application on December 4, 2021, in Criminal Case No. 80/2019. This petition challenges that rejection order.

Held

The High Court held that while a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in the nature of a summary trial, and Section 139 of the NI Act draws a statutory presumption in favor of the petitioner, the GST return, even if it were to be produced, would not be the sole decisive factor in determining the lis under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner wished to prove that no transaction took place, the burden of proof would be on the respondent (complainant). The Court further stated that to negate the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, evidence could have been produced and proved by calling Government Officers under whose domain those documents exist. Crucially, the Court found that Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when primary protection has been granted to the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the order dated December 4, 2021, rejecting the application. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned JMFC Korba erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for summoning documents related to GST registration, bank accounts, sale bills, and audit reports, which are crucial for establishing the petitioner's defense that no transaction of goods occurred as alleged by the complainant in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the presence of a GST number on the sale bill necessitates the production of GST returns and related documents to prove whether the alleged goods were actually sold to the petitioner. These documents are essential to establish the fact that no transaction took place, which is the petitioner's defense. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (complainant) or the State. However, the Court's reasoning implies that Section 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when primary protection is granted to the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act, and that the GST return would not be the sole decisive factor.