Bamini S vs Divya Mahendran - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42412

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Bamini S – Appellant
Versus
Divya Mahendran – Respondent
CRL MP NO. 7504 OF 2026 | CRL MP NO. 7505 OF 2026

Important Points

The production of additional documents by a complainant in a trial, even after cross-examination has commenced or partially concluded, is permissible if it serves the principle of bringing the best evidence on record, provided the accused is given adequate opportunity to challenge the veracity of such documents.

Subject

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque

Act Referred

Negotiable Instruments Act: S.138

Headnote

The proceedings arise from a challenge to a trial court order permitting the complainant to produce bank statements and income tax returns during an ongoing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court considered the petitioners' contention that such production fills a lacuna after cross-examination was already concluded. The core issue is whether a complainant can produce additional documents after the cross-examination of the primary witness regarding the financial capacity of the complainant has concluded. The court held that the mere production of financial documents does not automatically establish financial wherewithal; rather, it provides an opportunity for the defence to test the veracity and relevance of such evidence. The principle of best evidence encourages the record of documentary proofs to assist in adjudicatory justice. The court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the trial court's order for production of documents.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Rajkumar
For the Respondents: L. Baskaran

Table of Content
1. challenge to trial court allowing additional documents during ongoing criminal trial. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court discretion in permitting document production to ensure best evidence is presented, subject to cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5)

Order

The petitioners/accused, challenging the order passed by the trial court in STC.No.4223 of 2024 dated 13.03.2026 directing the respondent/complainant to mark the bank statement and income tax returns, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent/complainant cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case, and that too, after the detailed cross-examination conducted by the petitioners, wherein questions were raised regarding the bank statements and income tax returns which would only pre-close the defence of the petitioners/accused. 3. Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No.4223 of 2024. The petitioner had cross-examined PW1/complainant in detail. During the course of cross examination, the financial capacity of the respondent was questioned, and specific questions were put with regard to the bank statements and income tax returns. Subsequent thereto, the respondent/complainant filed a petition seeking permission to produce these documents, which the trial court allowed.

4. It is seen that the mere marking of the bank statements and income tax returns does not, by itself, establish the wherewithal of the respondent. The petitioner can question the veracity and relevance of the documents. In adjudicatory proceedings, it is preferable that the best evidence is brought on record. In the present case, the respondent/complainant is ready to produce the bank statements and income tax returns, on such production, the petitioner will have full opportunity to test the veracity of these documents through cross-

examination.

5. In view of the above, this court finds that no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.