The accused have the right to summon documents that are relevant to their defense in a criminal trial, and procedural safeguards must be followed when recording statements in summary cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners/accused have challenged an order dtd. 21/1/2020 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.9692/2016 by which, an application filed by the accused/petitioners under Sec. 91 read with Sec. 243(2) of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. The respondent/complainant initiated prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'). The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, the case was set down for trial. The substance of the dispute was that the cheque was issued by the accused towards supply of solar equipments. The defence of the accused was that the cheque was given as security and that the respondent had agreed to pay commission on the solar equipments sold. He also claimed that subsidy allowed by the Government of India was not passed on to the customers. At the trial, the respondent examined one of its officials as PW.1. In the course of his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted an e-mail addressed to the accused No.2 which was marked as Exs.D1 and D2. He also admitted that the accused had addressed a letter dtd. 31/3/2011 demanding commission for the sales of solar water heaters amounting to a sum of Rs.1, 18, 800.00. He also admitted that there was an agreement relating to payment of commission to the accused for sales of solar water heater. PW.1 admitted that the total invoice against the accused was a sum of Rs.33, 22, 632.00. When a suggestion was put to PW.1 as to the amount of subsidy that had to be released as per the policy of the Government of India, this witness was unable to disclose the same. He also admitted that there was separate account maintained for the subsidy amount payable in respect of each sales. Following the admission in evidence of PW.1, the accused filed an application under Sec. 91 read with Sec. 243(2) of Cr.P.C. to summon the following documents:-

1) Books of accounts

2) Income tax returns

3) Balance Sheets

4) Audited Balance Sheet from 2008 to 2015

5) Receivable and Payable book

6) Invoices and subsidy statements accounts

7) Sundry credit and sundry debt register

8) Inward and outward register

9) Agreements (as per PW.1 deposed in the Evidence)

10) Minutes of Meeting dtd. 8/6/2012

11) Subsidiary Scheme benefits Statements pertaining to the Accused No.1.

3. This application was opposed by the complainant who contended that the documents sought for by the accused was in no way related to the cheque in question and that the said documents were not required for deciding the case. It was also contended that the accused did not justify with proper reason to summon the document from the custody of the complainant. It also claimed that the accused had not disclosed the purpose for which the documents were necessary. It also claimed that the accused were asking colossal documents without disclosing their necessity.

4. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court held that the accused had admitted the transaction between them and the complainant. It also held that the accused did not deny the receipt of the solar water heaters from the complainant. In his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted the receipt of solar water heater systems from the complainant and that payments were made to the complainant. Therefore, the Trial Court held that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of the Solar Water Heaters from the complainant and it was upon the accused to establish that the cheque in question was not issued against the supplies made. Consequently, the Trial Court rejected application in terms of the order dtd. 21/1/2020.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the arrangement between the accused and the complainant was that the complainant would supply the Solar Water Heaters to the accused an