The court established the authority to summon documents from another case to ensure the fairness of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

O R D E R

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in S.T.No.35/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (‘NI Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner has stated in Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he has not executed the cheque in question involved in the above complaint. In order to prove his assertion, he filed an application to compare the signature on the said cheque with that of his admitted signature. The application was allowed by the Trial Court, and the petitioner submitted his specimen signatures in Court, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram (‘FSL’, in short), for expert opinion. However, by letter dated 08.05.2025, the FSL reported that the petitioner’s signatures for the contemporaneous period of 2021 were necessary for an effective comparison. Immediately on receipt of the communication, petitioner filed another application to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch (‘DySP’), to produce the lease agreement dated 04.11.2020, which bears the signature of the petitioner for the above period, and is produced in S.C. No.585/2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court – IV, Thodupuzha (‘Sessions Court’, in short). By Annexure A3 communication, the Trial Court directed the DySP to produce the above lease agreement. But, by Annexure A4 letter, the DySP informed that the document has already been produced before the Sessions Court. Immediately, the petitioner filed Annexure A5 application to direct the DySP to apply for the above original document and submit it before the Trial Court. Nonetheless, by Annexure A6 order, the Trial Court dismissed Annexure A5 application on the finding that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to call for a document which is produced before another Court.

Annexure A6 Order is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Although service of notice was effected on the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance for him.

4. Admittedly, the Trial Court had allowed the petitioner’s application for comparison of signature on the disputed cheque by the FSL. Subsequently, by Annexure A1 communication, the FSL informed that the petitioner’s signature for the contemporaneous period of 2021 was required.

5. It is the petitioner’s case that a document for the above period is produced before the Sessions Court. Accordingly, he filed Annexure A2 application to direct the DySP to produce the said document, which is in principle was allowed by order dated 28.09.2025. Nevertheless, by the impugned Annexure A6 order, the Trial Court dismissed the subsequent Annexure A5 application.

6. In a case of an identical nature, in State of Kerala v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin , [2024 (5) KHC 41] , this Court has held that there is no legal bar in calling for a document, that is subject matter in another case in light of Section 91 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

7. In the instant case, as the onus of proof rests on the petitioner, in view of Section 139 of the NI Act, that he has not executed the cheque, and the Trial Court has already permitted the disputed cheque to be examined by the FSL, I am of the definite view that the document sought from the Sessions Court is to be forwarded to the FSL so as to complete the forensic examination. Nonetheless, as the proceedings pending before the Sessions Court is reportedly posted to 04.04.2026 for framing of charge, I am of the firm view that the proceedings before the Se