The main legal point established in the judgment is that the account books relating to the respondent alone for the relevant financial years were sufficient to be produced to rebut the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitions are filed against the order passed by the learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3509, 3515, 3503, 3520, 3768, 3519, 3511, 3506, 3502, 3521, 3517, 3516, 3505, 3508, 3504, 3510, 3512, 3518, 3513 and 3514 of 2009 in CC Nos.7185, 10982, 11617, 12325, 11929, 12326, 7440, 5721, 11618, 13914, 12077, 12983, 7094, 7269, 7120, 10551, 10552, 11930, 10780, 10781 of 2008 dated 6.1.2010

2. The petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint filed under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The private complaint was taken on file and the complainant was examined as P.W.1. On cross examination of the complainant, the accused/respondent could elicit that he is ready to submit Income tax returns and passbook before the Court in order to show the accounts.

3. The respondent accused had immediately filed a petition under Sec.91 of Cr.P.C (hereinafter referred as "Code) for the production of

i. Bank statements/bank pass books pertaining to the respondents various bank accounts account relating to the months of December 2005, January to December 2006, January to December 2007, January to December 2008

ii. Account books cash book and ledger pertaining to year ending 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008, 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009.

iii. Income tax returns acknowledged with details of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts with complete schedules eprtaining to the periods 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008, 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009.

4. The petitioner resisted the application stating that those documents are not necessary to discharge the burden of the accused. However, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner has disclosed that he was willing to produce the income tax returns and passbook and therefore allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to produce the income tax returns and other documents as desired by the respondents. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant is before this Court.

5. Mr.R. Raman Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had dues payable by him during the business transactions and after admitting the liability, he has issued cheques. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner/complainant has proved the legally enforceable debt for which cheques have been drawn and the presumption is in favour of the petitioner for such liability and only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has come forward with an application under Sec.91 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent has sought production of bank accounts relating to December 2005 to December 2008 and accounts book, cash book and ledger pertaining to the financial years 2005 to 2009 and similarly the income tax returns for the same year. The learned counsel pointed out that the volumes of the books cannot be produced before the trial court and it is evident that the respondent is trying to fish out his defence from the accounts of the petitioner.

6. On the contrary, the Mr.C.S. Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has filed 20 cases on the basis of various cheques pertaining to various accounting years and therefore, the accounts are necessary documents to verify the amounts due and payable by the respondent. The learned counsel pointed out that the cheques were alleged to have been issued for the business transactions and the petitioner had admitted that there were payments by the respondents by way of cheque, cash and on account transfer. The learned counsel pointed out unless the accounts book and the bank statements are perused, the respondent will not be in a position to rebut the presumption.

7. Heard and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, there was a business transaction between the parties. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-was due and the respondent had issued