Vinod Kumar vs. Devkaran

Held

The High Court held that while the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, favors the complainant, the initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the existence of a debt or liability. The presumption under Section 139 does not automatically extend to proving the debt or liability itself, which must be established by the complainant. The Court considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde and P. Venugopal Vs. Madan P. Sarathi. In light of these precedents and the facts of the case, the High Court found that the trial court had rightly dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and the subsequent criminal revision. Therefore, no interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was warranted. The Court noted that a detailed discussion of the petitioner's arguments might prejudice his defense before the trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging two orders: one dated 05/07/2023 by the Sessions Judge, Neemuch, dismissing his criminal revision, and another dated 11/05/2023 by the JMFC, Neemuch, dismissing his application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The case originated from a complaint filed by the respondent, Devkaran, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 8,00,000/- dated 22/06/2020 towards repayment of a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- given in June 2019 for business purposes. The cheque was dishonoured upon presentation. The petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. sought directions for the respondent to produce his permanent address, income tax returns for 2017-18 and 2018-19, business details, shop registration, GST number, agricultural details, Rin-Pustika, and bank account details.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking production of documents from the respondent, thereby hindering a fair disposal of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the documents sought were necessary for a fair disposal of the case and should have been produced. He contended that the impugned orders passed by both the trial court and the Sessions Court were erroneous and against the law and facts. The petitioner relied on the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Premkumar Vs. Rajnish, which held that once the necessity of documents is established, the trial court ought to summon them to confront witnesses and for doing complete justice. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue or state in the judgment.