The court reinforced that under the Criminal Procedure Code, parties are entitled to evidence at any stage to ensure a fair trial, specifically where key documents are crucial for justice.

O R D E R

These three Crl.M.Cs. are filed challenging three separate orders in S.T.No.4577 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Palakkad. Since in all these Crl.M.Cs., the parties are the same and the matter arose out of S.T.No.4577 of 2004, these matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner herein is the complainant in S.T.No.4577 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad arising out of a private complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (hereinafter referred for short as 'N.I.Act' only). The petitioner, on the closure of evidence filed three petitions,(1) C.M.P.No.1276 of 2006, filed for a direction to reopen the prosecution evidence, (2) C.M.P.No.1277 of 2006, filed for a direction :-2-:

to the first accused to produce the minutes book of Infogenie Information Tech and Serv Pvt. Ltd. and (3) C.M.P.No.1275 of 2006, filed for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Circle No.I, Palakkad to produce the income tax returns, balance sheet etc. of M/s.Infogenie Information Tech and Serv Pvt.Ltd. All these petitions were dismissed by the court below by three separate orders and the petitioner is challenging the above three orders separately by preferring these Crl.M.Cs.

3. Crl.M.C.No.1622 of 2006 is filed challenging Annexure-F order dated 5.6.2006 in CMP No.1276 of 2006 in S.T.No.4577/2004. Annexure-C is the copy of the petition (C.M.P.No.1276 of 2006) where the prayer is for re-opening the complainant's evidence. Crl.M.C.No.1627 of 2006 is filed challenging Annexure- E order in Annexure-B petition, namely C.M.P.No.1275 of 2006, in which the prayer is for a direction to produce the income tax records from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Circle No.I, Palakkad.

:-3-:

Crl.M.C.No.1628 of 2006 wherein the challenge is against Annexure-G order of the court below in C.M.P.No.1277 of 2006, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D wherein the prayer is to direct the first accused to produce the minutes book of the company, namely M/s.Infogenie Information Tech and Serv Pvt.Ltd. The above three orders are impugned in the above three criminal miscellaneous cases.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, a brief description of facts of the case is absolutely necessary which is as follows:-

S.T.No.4577 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I.Act with the allegation that the cheque in question was issued by the first and second accused in their capacity as Vice Chairman and Managing Director respectively of the company M/s.Inforgenie Information Tech and Serv Pvt.Ltd. for repayment of loan advanced to the company to the tune of Rs.10,75,000/- on various occasions in his individual capacity. The petitioner-

:-4-:

complainant was earlier the Chairman and the Managing Director of the said company till his resignation in October, 2003. According to the petitioner/complainant, an amount of Rs.10,75,000/- was due to the complainant and the accused, acting on behalf of the company in discharge of the liability towards the complainant, gave cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- and 5,75,000/- respectively. The cheque for Rs.5,75,000/- was encashed. But the cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- was not encashed. According to the petitioner/complainant, on contacting the accused, they took back the cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- and issued two other cheques; one for Rs.3,00,000/- and another cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.170842 dated 15.9.2004 drawn on H.D.F.C.Bank, Palakkad Branch. The cheque for Rs.3 lakhs was encashed. The further case of the complainant is that at the request of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for collecting through the H.D.F.C.Bank, Palakkad, but, the same was returned to the complainant without :-5-:

encashment. Hence, after compliance of th