1. Both the revisions are connected with the same parties in a matter of similar nature and therefore, decided by a common order.

2. In Criminal Revision No.1831/2012, the applicant has challenged the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in complaint case No.239/2011, whereas in Criminal Revision No.1832/2012, the applicant has challenged the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in complaint case No.240/2011. In both the cases, applications under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was accepted.

3. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the complainant has moved two different complaints against the respondents that she gave cheques of Rs.50 Lacs and Rs.5 Lacs to the applicant/the complainant and those cheques were dishonoured. The respondent has moved an application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. in both the cases that the complainant does not possess the status, so that he could have been given a sum of Rs.55 Lacs without any bank transaction and therefore, it is necessary that his income tax returns of last 5 years be brought on record and copy of the account books of last 5 years be also produced before the trial Court. It was also sought that the copy of the bank account for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 be also brought on record.

4. The learned JMFC, Jabalpur, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the applications.

5. A notice of the revision was issued and served to the respondent but, none appeared on behalf of the respondent and therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant only.

6. It appears that the applicant could file the revision applications before the Sessions Court concerned. However, he filed the revisions before this Court directly. It is the duty of the party to knock the door of the lowest Court first, so that being aggrieved with the order of that Court, a petition under section 482 of the Cr P C may be filed before this Court. However, for a criminal revision, there is a concurrent jurisdiction of this Court as well as the Sessions Court and therefore, this Court cannot refuse to hear the criminal revisions filed by the applicant.

7. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no such document could be sought by the accused in a case of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the accused did not deny relating to issuance of cheques and it was pleaded that the cheques were given for the purpose of security. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of “Rajeev Soni v. Indresh Singh”, [(2007) 1 Vidhi Bhasvar 174]. In the present case, if facts are examined then, it is no where established that the accused accepted the issuance of cheques to the complainant. His defence is that cheques were stolen and a huge amount is filled up in the cheques. There was no such transaction between the parties relating to that huge amount of Rs.55 Lacs and therefore, it is for the applicant to show that what was the transaction took place between the parties, so that he provided Rs.55 Lacs to the accused and therefore, accused gave such cheques to him. If the applicant has no status to lent such a huge amount to anyone then, certainly the defence of the accused may be accepted.

8. To assess the status of the applicant that he could invest or lent a sum of Rs.55 Lacs to the accused, his income tax returns of last 5 years and entries of account books as well as the entries of bank account for two years are necessary. It is for the applicant to produce such documents to show his status and about the validity of the transaction otherwise it shall be presumed that the sum, which was mentioned on the cheques was not due towards the applicant and he could not get his complaints succeeded. If a person claims tha