These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

by the petitioner/ accused challenging the order passed by

the Trial Court in C.C. Nos.1471/2020 and 1049/2020 for

having dismissed the application under Section 91 of

Cr.P.C dated 17.12.2022 and 10.11.2022 respectively.

- 4 -

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

The case of the complainant is that the

petitioner is said to have issued cheques to the respondent

by discharging the liability and the said cheques were

dishonoured. A Complaint came to be filed by the

respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence

punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act. After accused

pleaded guilty, the evidence has been recorded, the case

posted for hearing on the final argument. This petitioner

filed these applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for

summoning the counter foil of the cheques issued by the

petitioner, which is under challenge.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

has

contended that the case of the petitioner in default is that

the cheques were issued in the year 2016 for the case of

the respondent, the cheques issued in 2019 whereas in

the SARFESI Act at the instance of the Kotak Mahindra

Bank, the cheques and other documents were seized.

Therefore the counter foil of the cheques has to be

summoned from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, the cheques

were issued in the year 2016, the same was addressed in

- 5 -

the evidence of PW2. Therefore, this document is

necessary for dispose of the case. Thus, the document is

the evidence and support the case. Hence prayed for

allowing these petitions.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

objected the contention of the petitioner contending that

these applications filed by the petitioner at the fag-end of

the trial, after the arguments of both sides and further the

case was posted for passing the Judgment. Therefore,

petitioner is before this Court.

6.

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

The trial Court has clearly stated that while the documents

were seized by the Kotak Mahindra Bank under the

SARFESI Act, an inventory was prepared, but there is no

reference for seizing of the cheques and its counter foil,

which can be possible to summon any such document,

which are not seized by the Kotak Mahindra Bank and its

delay tact is allowed. Hence by dismissing these petitions

in support of relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court

between Md. Ghouseuddin vs. Syed Riazul Hussain

and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3315.

- 6 -

7.

It is not disputed that the respondent filed a

complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I.

Act. Thereafter statement of this petitioner/ accused under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded and accused also laid the

evidence of two witnesses and after closing the evidence,

heard the arguments and posted the matter to pass the

Judgment. The petitioner/ accused filed these applications

for summoning the counter foil of the cheques. Ofcourse,

he has disputed the date of issuance of cheques in the

cross examination of the complainant and at the request

of the petitioner, examination of DW2 as stated in the

evidence that while issuing a cheque he has mentioned the

date and issuance of cheque in the counter foil. Therefore

the petitioner is before this Court to summon those

counter foil of the cheque book.

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that though the counter foil were seized by Kotak

Mahindra Bank under SARFESI Act, the trial Court has

categorically held the inventory has produced some

documents, which were seized by Kotak Mahindra Bank

under the SARFESI Act. But, there is no reference

available regarding seizing of the counter foil of the

cheques by the Kotak Mahindra Bank. More over under

- 7 -

SARFESI Act, they may seize the documents pertaining to

the title deeds for the purpose of auction sale, the

question of seizing the empty cheques or counter part by

them does not arise as they were