The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the legal mechanism for obtaining access to bank account statements.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. petition may kindly be allowed; and

(a) The impugned order dated 19.01.2021, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.1 Udaipur, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed.

Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner, whereupon a case bearing no. 16532/2015 came to be registered against him before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (N.I. Act Cases), Udaipur. Thereafter, during the course of trial, the complainant-respondent in his cross-examination stated that his family had sold certain lands, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to the accused-petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner preferred an application under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. to bring on the record the respondent’s bank statements for the year 2012-2013 and the sale deed of the lands in question. That vide order dated 19.01.2021, the learned Court below partly allowed the application; granting the petitioner liberty to produce the bank statements of respondent for year 2012-13, and sale deed of land in question at his defence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank statements of the respondent can only be place on record by the respondent himself, and that there is no legal mechanism whereby the accused-petitioner could obtain access to the bank account statements of the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Court below has committed a grave error of law by not appreciating the wide contours and objective of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the first part of provision of law contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power, and the second part of the said provision of law casts an obligatory duty on the learned Trial Court, if it appears that the evidence in question is essential to arrive at a just decision of the case.

The said Section of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

6.1 Learned counsel, in support of such submission, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2022) decided on 08.08.2022.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 19.01.2022, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record.

8. Learned counsel for the present respondent further submitted that the accused petitioner has already filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. previously, for the same intention and examination of the brother of the complainant-respondent, which was rejected by the learned Court below.

9. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case