Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
Kashinath Bhattacharjee – Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura and another – Respondent
Decided On: 17.11.2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused has the right to request the production of documents, but the trial court must conduct a proper inquiry and provide reasoning when deciding on such requests.
Headnote:
Section 397 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 401 - Criminal Procedure Code - Article 227 - Constitution of India - Section 138 - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 420 - Indian Penal Code - Section 91 - Criminal Procedure Code - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 138 and 280 - Income Tax Act, 1961
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a petition for production of the complainant's income tax return. The trial court rejected the petition, leading to the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's request for the production of the income tax return was not based on proper inquiry and lacked reasoning. The court held that the rejection was unjust and remitted the case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had the right to request the production of the complainant's income tax return and whether the trial court's order was interlocutory or final.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to determine the scope of the accused's right to request the production of documents and the limitations on the court's power to summon such documents. The court emphasized the need for proper inquiry and reasoning by the trial court when deciding on such requests.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was partly allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
1. As agreed by the learned Counsel of both sides, this revision petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. By filing the instant application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the Code) as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 5, Agartala, West Tripura dated 18.6.2008 passed in N.I. Case No. 113 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class rejected the prayer of the present petitioner who is the accused in the aforesaid Case No. 113 of 2007, for production of income tax return of the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein, for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 and fixed the matter for hearing on the question of maintainability of the case/proceeding on 21.6.2008.
3. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dutta Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1, State of Tripura as well as Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, complainant.
4. In the instant case the questions arise for decision by this Court are whether the accused in a summons case has the right for asking the trial court to issue direction to the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein for production of his income tax return to the court at the time of examination of the witnesses of the complainant before framing of charge and whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order and if so whether revision against the said order is permissible.
5. The facts needed to be discussed for disposal of the present revision petition are as follows:
The respondent No. 2 in the instant application made a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala by way of filing an application to take cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) against the present petitioner, the accused therein, as the present petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 19,35,000/- to meet up the dues against the account of the present petitioner vide Cheque No. SB 566532 dated 15.5.2007 on Tripura Gramin Bank, Agartala Branch, which was subsequently bounced on production by the respondent No. 2 before the Bank authority due to non-availability of the aforesaid amount in the account of the present petitioner. On receipt of the complaint petition filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate registered the same as Case No. N.I. 113 of 2007 and after taking cognizance transferred the same to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura for trial. After receiving the aforesaid complaint case on transfer, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class fixed the matter for examination of witnesses before framing of charge and on the date of examination of witnesses an application was filed by the present petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent No. 2 herein to produce in income tax return for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07. The said prayer of the present petitioner was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide order dated 18.6.2008 and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.6.2008, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition for quashing the said order.
6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner filed the aforesaid petition which was rejected by the learned trial court only for the purpose of confronting the witnesses of the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein at the time of examination of witnesses of the complainant before framing of charge so that the accused, petitioner herein, can get the benefit even before trial is i
