The necessity of a speedy trial in cases filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the limitations on the accused's right to demand the complainant's account books and income tax returns under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.291 of 2005 against the order passed in C.M.P.No.6500 of 2005 in C.C.No.390 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore, dated 23.02.2006.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant is a registered finance company. The first accused, being the Proprietor of the second accused firm, had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant, for his business purpose, on 29.06.1997, and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In order to discharge the part payment of the said debt, the first accused had issued a cheque dated 12.01.2000, for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, on behalf of the second accused firm, drawn on Corporation Bank, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore-1 to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Thondamuthur Branch, on 21.01.2000, it was returned with an endorsement of "insufficient funds". The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 04.02.2000, which was received by the accused on 05.02.2000. The accused sent a reply notice dated 14.02.2000 making false allegations. The complainant sent a rejoinder notice. As the accused failed to effect payment of cheque, even after receipt of legal notice, the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore.

3. The complaint was taken on the file of Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore as C.C.No.390 of 2000. During the case proceedings, the accused had filed a petition in C.M.P.No.6500 of 2005 in C.C.No.390 of 2000 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., calling for income tax returns and the book of accounts of the respondent/complainant. It was submitted that as far as the offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, the accused should be allowed to rebut the presumptions arising out of the cheque issued, as contemplated under Section 118 of the Act and to prove the same by one of rebuttal, the above said documents are very essential to prove his case that there was no passing of consideration as to the transactions that took place in the year 1997, and that the alleged cheque was issued on 12.01.2000. In support of his contentions, he had marked a ruling reported in 2002 DCR 231 of the High Court, wherein, the High Court had observed that the accused had got the right to prove his case and hence, may require the accounts in possession of the complainant and had allowed the revision.

4. The respondent/complainant in his counter had stated that the petition was filed only to delay the proceedings and that the case has been pending for more than five years. It was submitted that no such documents are available with this complainant as the original complainant, Rangasamy, who has given evidence in this case on 04.04.2002 has already demised and this complainant has got into the shoes as representative of the complainant firm. It was submitted that the present complainant was also examined on 04.10.2003.

5. When the case was taken for final hearing on 23.02.2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore, after perusing the records and documents and after hearing the arguments of both sides, observed that the case was instituted in the year 2000 and the complaint was made by one Rangasamy representing the complainant's firm, viz., Vaathiyar Finance and the P.W.1 was examined in chief on 04.04.2002. Subsequently, two more additional witnesses were also examined on the part of the complainant and the case was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, on 15.09.2003 from which date the case has been posted and called for examination of defence witnesses. Subsequently, on 02.01.2004, P.W.1 the original complainant viz., Rangasamy was cross-examiend by the accused's cou