The court established that while an accused can request documents under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., such requests must be relevant to the case at hand and cannot be used for a fishing expedition.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J. -

The petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant were before the XI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes in Bengaluru in C.C.No.60105 of 2018 for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). They are now before this Court calling in question an order dated 18-12-2023 passed by the concerned Court in C.C.No.60105 of 2018 on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., in which he consequently sought a prayer to allow the application filed by him in its entirety.

2. Heard Sri Anand Muttalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The complainant and the petitioner had transactions between them. The transactions led to issuance of certain cheques by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Those cheques having been dishonoured under the endorsement 'stop payment', the complainant knocks at the doors of the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., by registering a case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The proceedings have gone on before the concerned Court. The petitioner, at one point of time, filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to summon a representative of Apple Company to bring in documents for the period between 2016 and 2020 along with invoices. The concerned Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which comes to be challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.10923 of 2023. The petitioner then withdraws the said petition, with liberty to seek information from the appropriate Court through appropriate proceedings. It is after that, the petitioner files the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the complainant to produce documents relating to CRT/claims along with invoices containing UDID numbers given/uploaded to Apple Company for the period 2017-18 to 2019-20. The concerned Court, by the impugned order, partly allows the application only for the period 2018, by directing production of the said documents with a rider 'if any'. Therefore, the petitioner/accused is before this Court calling in question the said order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the documents that are sought are relevant. They are documents pertaining to the period or invoices which contain UDID numbers uploaded to Apple Company between 2017 and 2020. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that usage of the word 'if any' in the order would make it directory and not a direction to produce the documents. According to the learned counsel, those documents are available with the respondent and that would clinch the issue, as when the respondent had to supply materials to its consumers, it was necessary for it to raise invoices with Apple Company. The respondent is willfully not submitting the documents as they are against it. Without the CRT claims, it is the submission of the learned counsel, that invoices raised to educational institutions cannot even be processed. He would submit that the application should be allowed in its entirety with no rider 'if any'.

5. Per contra, the learned senior Sri M.T. Nanaiah appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions contending that there is no error in the order passed by the concerned Court, as it has in fact directed to produce invoices with UDID numbers, if any. The complainant has categorically stated in the cross-examination that he will not sell the gadgets/goods with UDID numbers. It is his deposition that goods are sold without UDID numbers and there is no question of a positive direction directing production of the same. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel