The court upheld the trial court's ability to draw adverse inferences from the non-production of evidence as per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

ORDER

1] They are heard and perused the record.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) & Economical Offences, Indore in Criminal Case No.03 of 2004, whereby the application filed by the petitioner, purportedly without mentioning the provisions of law, for strict compliance of the orders passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos.5102/2016 and 26498/2017 has been rejected holding that, in respect of the documents, which the respondents have not been able to produce in the Court, adverse inference can be drawn.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial under Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of an FIR registered by the CBI, Bhopal, wherein the case is at the stage of recording of the defence witness. At this stage, an application was filed by the petitioner/accused for production of certain documents in his defence, however, the same was rejected by the trial Court on 22.04.2022, with the observations as aforesaid that, in respect of the documents, which the respondents have not been able to produce in the Court, adverse inference can be drawn.

Thus, being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

4] Further facts of the case are that it has a long history, earlier, the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence was closed by the trial Court vide its order dated 08.05.2014, against which, a petition u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. (M.Cr.C. No.3787 of 2014) was filed before this Court, which was allowed on 07.12.2025, and the petitioner was granted opportunity to examine three defence witnesses, and thereafter on 15.12.2015, the petitioner also moved an application for summoning the defence witnesses along with the necessary documents, and thus, the defence witness was summoned but he did not bring any original document along with him but only the photocopies, and out of 33 documents sought by the petitioner, 24 documents were not brought by him, and the documents, which he brought, were also the photocopies of the original, and when the witness was asked about the original documents, he informed that the documents have already been handed over to the CBI. Thus, the petitioner again moved an application for issuance of direction to the witness for bringing the original documents, however, the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.01.2016, against which a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ( M.Cr.C. No.5102 of 2016) was filed, which was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 07.11.2016, specifically directing the trial Court to call for the original documents from wherever they are available, either from the bank or from the prosecution, and also from any other body, if it is informed to the Court that the original documents were handed over to the said body, and after calling the original documents, to allow the petitioner to examine the witness.

5] A copy of the said order dated 07.11.2016 was also submitted to the trial Court along with the list of documents which were to be summoned from the prosecution, and thus, the trial Court, vide its order dated 16.11.2016 again directed the prosecution to produce the original documents as per the list. On 06.12.2016, adjournment was sought by the prosecution to produce documents, and also prayed for summoning of the documents from the concerned bank, and thus, the trial Court issued a letter to the UCO bank and also to the S.P., CBI was also directed to produce the documents, and on 09.01.2017, the Senior Manager, UCO bank informed the court that the documents have to be called from the headquarter, whereas S.P., CBI replied that none of the documents mentioned in the list are available with the CBI. Some documents were indeed submitted by the UCO bank, however, the trial Court was of the opinion that the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5102 of 2016, dated 07