The non-production of documents in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a matter for the prosecution to explain.

1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in C.M.P.No.4926 of 2009 in C.C.No.23/2007 dated 27.11.2009.

2. The petitioner, who stands accused of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in C.M.P.No.4926 of 2009 seeking production of the following documents:

1.The Registration Certificate or License of the complainant.

2.The PAN or TAN Card of complainant company.

3.The name and address of the Auditor of complainant firm.

4.The Income Tax Return for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006.

The lower Court under order dated 27.11.2009 has dismissed the said petition inter alia on the reasoning that the respondent himself had categorically stated that she is not possessed of the documents and that she cannot be expected to produce the same. Such finding of the lower Court has been arrived at from the stand taken in the counter in Crl.M.P.No.4926 of 2009 filed by the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would heavily rely upon the evidence of DW-1, who is none other than the proprietrix of the respondent/ complainants firm. The contention of the learned counsel is where in the course of her examination, she has categorically stated that receipts and payments all stand duly recorded in the income tax returns, which returns are duly filed and that she could produce the same in respect of the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. Learned counsel would submit that when such is the position, the lower Court ought to have allowed the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and required the respondent to produce such documents and the failure of the lower Court to do so will cause the defense in the case grave prejudice.

4. This Court is unable to accept such contention. Setting aside the order of the lower Court which is found to be a well reasoned one would only result in unnecessary protraction of proceedings therebefore. When DW-1, the proprietrix of the respondent/ complainants firm has categorically deposed in the manner informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then the non-production of documents would be a matter for the prosecution to explain in the case, failing which adverse influence may well be drawn by the lower Court. In that view of the matter, this petition has no merits and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.