Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Dharmendra Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Singh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1209 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2019
Mr. Vipul Jaiman, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. V.S. Godara, PP, for the Respondent
In cases of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque, and the trial is to be conducted in a summary manner. The non-production of income tax returns for relevant financial years is a matter of evidence appreciation, and the accused may examine the income tax official to obtain the returns.
Headnote:
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Summoning Income Tax Returns - The court held that in cases of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque. The trial is to be conducted in a summary manner, and fishing roving inquiry at the instance of the accused is not permissible. The non-production of income tax returns for relevant financial years is a matter of evidence appreciation, and the accused may examine the income tax official to obtain the returns.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued a bounced cheque, and the complainant filed a case. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted to filing income tax returns for specific financial years. The petitioner requested the court to summon the income tax returns, but the trial court rejected the request.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that in cases of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque. The trial is to be conducted in a summary manner, and fishing roving inquiry at the instance of the accused is not permissible. The non-production of income tax returns for relevant financial years is a matter of evidence appreciation, and the accused may examine the income tax official to obtain the returns.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's request to summon the income tax returns of the complainant for specific financial years in a case involving a bounced cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which establishes a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque. The court also emphasized that the trial is to be conducted in a summary manner, and the non-production of income tax returns is a matter of evidence appreciation.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the court upheld the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's request to summon the income tax returns, emphasizing that the accused may examine the income tax official to obtain the returns.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan be set aside as the trial court wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon Income Tax Returns of the complainant respondent for the financial years 2012-2013, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
2. The petitioner had issued a cheque which on presentation had bounced. Cognizance of offence was taken after notice of accusation was served. The complainant stepped into the witness box. The petitioner conducted thorough cross-examination and in the cross-examination the complainant admitted that he has filed Income Tax Returns qua the abovesaid financial years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the midst of cross-examination an application was filed that the complainant be directed to produce the income tax returns of the above said financial year.
4. The trial court rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that if the complainant has failed to prove the income tax returns, he shall suffer to his own peril.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that income tax returns of the above said financial year are necessary to impeach the credibility of the complainant.
6. In respect of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. The trial of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is to be conducted in summary manner or as a summons case. Therefore, fishing roving inquiry at the instance of the accused is not permissible, as it has been rightly observed by the trial court that if the complainant to corroborate his testimony fail to produce income tax returns of the financial years qua which reference has been made in the cross-examination, he shall suffer adversely.
7. What is the effect on non-production of income tax returns of the relevant financial years is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. The petitioner if so advised may examine official of income tax of concerned Ward by requisitioning the income tax returns of the complainant to fortify submission made before this court.
8. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.
