Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Ishak Mohammad S/o Shafi Mohammad – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3691 of 2024
Decided On : 01-07-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 91 CR.P.C. - The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's application for production of documents, emphasizing that the relevance of the requested documents to the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not established. The court interpreted that the determination of an offense under Section 138 focuses on the validity of the cheque and the dishonor, rather than the complainant's licensing status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case, sought to compel the complainant to produce his Income Tax Return and money lending license. The trial court dismissed this application, leading to a revision petition that was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide an affidavit supporting his application and did not demonstrate the necessity of the documents for the case's judicial disposal. The court noted that the key issue was whether an offense had been committed under Section 138, not the complainant's licensing.
Issues: Whether the documents requested by the petitioner were necessary and relevant for the judicial disposal of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the relevance of the requested documents was not established, and the focus of the case should be on the validity of the cheque and the circumstances of its dishonor, rather than the complainant's licensing.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the court finding no irregularity in the previous orders.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner's (an accused) grievance is against an order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begu, Chittorgarh, which upheld the order dated 11.05.2023 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, dismissing his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 instituted against the petitioner, he filed an application seeking a direction to the complainant to produce his Income Tax Return and money lending license. This application was dismissed by the trial court on 11.05.2023. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Begu, District Chittorgarh, which was also dismissed on 09.10.2023. Hence, this petition.
3. In the background of the narrative provided in the petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. A review of the order dated 11.05.2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, along with the revisional order dated 09.10.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, reveals that same are premised on valid reasoning. It has been noted by learned Session Judge that the revisionist/petitioner did not even file any affidavit in support of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. That aside, he failed to demonstrate as to how the documents sought for are necessary and relevant for the judicial disposal of the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. All that the Court has to determine is whether an offense has been committed by the accused or not. If an offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been committed the consequences would follow.
5. Whether the complainant had a license to lend on interest is not relevant in the case of cheque dishonor. In the case of cheque dishonor, what is to be seen is if the cheque was issued in relation to a valid loan and was dishonored without payment, even after giving notice.
6. Having thus perused the file and after going through the reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, I find no irregularity either in facts or in law.
7. The application of the petitioner filed before the learned trial court appears to be merely a dilatory tactic to delay the proceedings and has been rightly dismissed. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
8. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
The court established that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevance of documents requested under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must be clearly demonstrated, focusing on ....
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld unless conclusively disproven by the accused.
Presumption against the drawer of the cheque, dishonour of cheques due to closure of the account, and the petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption.
A cheque exceeding the specified amount on the instrument is invalid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court affirmed that the applicant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for leave.
The court affirmed that timely prosecution and vigilance in asserting rights are crucial in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The dishonour of cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt must be proved, and the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act can only be rebutted with strong evidence.
The court upheld that a dishonored cheque creates a presumption of liability unless adequately rebutted, reinforcing the legal principles under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
