Moh. Kadir Khan vs. Priyanka Sharma

Facts

The petitioner, Moh. Kadir Khan, filed a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, challenging an order dated 20.05.2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 94 of BNSS. The underlying case, filed by the respondent, Priyanka Sharma, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was pending. The petitioner sought production of the complainant's ledger book for 2017 and the GST department's audit report for 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the bill produced by the complainant was an estimated bill and that these documents were necessary to demonstrate the cheque was given as security, not for legal obligation. The trial court had already examined the complainant and fixed the case for defence witnesses.

Held

The High Court held that the trial court's order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The court found that the document presented by the complainant (Ex. P-8) was a bill in the name of Arya Tyres, containing signatures of both Arya Tyres and the customer, along with details of material sold and the amount. The court considered this document, a carbon copy of the original, to be admissible in evidence, and the original was not strictly required. Regarding the demand for the ledger book and GST audit report, the court observed that these pertained to the complainant's business matters and were not essential for the defence to establish its case. Therefore, the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application as devoid of merit was upheld. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 94 of BNSS, thereby preventing the petitioner from leading crucial defence evidence? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 94 of BNSS and principles of evidence). Petitioner's arguments: The bill produced by the complainant lacked essential details like GST Number and Invoice Number, rendering it an estimated bill. The entire complaint case was based on this questionable bill. The rejection of the application under Section 94 of BNSS deprived the petitioner of his right to lead evidence and present his defence. The impugned order should be set aside. Respondent's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondent.