An application under Section 91 CrPC to summon a complainant's bank records may be rejected if the accused can establish the same facts (such as fund transfers) by producing their own account statements.

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) has been filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2019 passed in R.T. No.11135/2017 ( Narendra Kumar Singh vs. Ashish) by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, whereby the application filed by petitioners under Section 91 of CrPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioners are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Trial Court. During course of the complainant’s evidence, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction to summon the bank account statement of the complainant/respondent for the period from 25.01.2016 to 24.03.2017. The said request was made on the specific ground that the petitioners had already transferred the alleged amount to the complainant through online banking i.e. RTGS and complainant's bank statement is essential to establish the said fact. However, learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the necessity and relevance of said document for just adjudication of the case, rejected the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petition contending that impugned order is erroneous, illegal, and liable to be quashed and seeking a direction to the learned Trial Court to summon the complainant’s bank account statement for the period from 25.01.2016 to 24.03.2017.

3. Reliance is placed on the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of K. Thipperudrappa S/o Late K. Siddappa v. M/s Samala Mareppa & Sons & Another. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:

"3. As seen from both the orders impugned, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has rejected the application under Section 91 and declined to call for the documents on the ground that the case made out by the complainant has established for dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds. The complainant has also established issuance of notice to the accused and non-compliance by the accused. On that basis, the learned Judge held there was no need to summon the document. It has held such proof was enough to decide the issue. In the revision, the learned Sessions Judge takes notice of the said view and supplementing his own opinion about the scope of Section 91 of Cr.P.C, has rejected the revision.

4. On perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts, am satisfied that the both the courts have failed to notice intent and purpose under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. It is clearly evident from the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge that he has failed to notice that the accused has right to defend a charge in Criminal trial. The approach of Trial Court in referring to evidence tendered by the complaint and then rejecting the request of the accused to summon documents is nothing but prejudging the whole issue. From the observations of the learned Trial Judge, it is noticed that the Trial Court has formed opinion that the complainant has established its case against the accused and therefore no purpose will be served by summoning the documents. Such an approach of the Trial Court is wholly erroneous and speaks of the fact that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt which is caste on the prosecution/complainant has been given a go by. Apart from it, it must be noticed that as the proceedings relates to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption under Section 139 operates. The complainant is always in an advantageous position in view of the statutory presumption in h