IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

128 CRR-1172-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 09.02.2026 M/s Sai Medicos & Anr.

..... Petitioners VERSUS K.C. Sharma (Krishan Chand Sharma)

..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Inderjeet Sharma and Mr. Deepak Grover, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

In a trial being conducted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Faridabad, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the application moved by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed. The abovesaid application has been dismissed by virtue of order dated

09.05.2024, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’.

2. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the present Revision Petition has been preferred.

3. In brief, the facts emanating from record are that the petitioner is facing trial for the commission of abovementioned offence and the abovementioned trial is at the stage of defence evidence. As per record, at the stage, when the petitioner is supposed to adduce his evidence, an application dated 05.10.2023, under Section 311 CrPC was moved, but the learned trial Court observed that the documents, being sought to be produced by the petitioner, i.e. the Income Tax Return of the complainant/respondent, are not relevant for the decision of complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is facing trial for the commission of abovementioned offence in view of false averments made in the complaint. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the crucial aspects involved in the trial is as to whether there was any existing liability of petitioner to pay the cheque amount or not. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of cross- examination of the complainant/respondent, he was encountered with a question as to whether he had mentioned the liability with regard to payment of money by the petitioner in his Income Tax Returns for the financial year

2016-17 or not.

6. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the copy of Income Tax Return was placed on record by the respondent himself before the learned trial Court, but there is a big question mark with regard to authenticity of entries recorded therein. According to learned counsel for the petitioner to cross-verify the abovementioned document, it is necessary for the petitioner to call the original Income Tax Return of the respondent from Income Tax Department. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is fixed for defence evidence and as per settled principles of law, at this stage whatever the evidence, the petitioner (being accused) wants to lead, the learned trial Court should facilitate the same in a positive manner, rather being a hurdle in producing the same. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the denial of abovementioned right to the petitioner will cause a grave prejudice to him, which is in violation of settled principles of law.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned counsel for the respondent the document is being sought to be produced, by the petitioner, to prove existing liability of the petitioner regarding cheque amount. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the contents of Revision Petition, wherein the petitioner has admitted the fact that there was an existing liability of the petitioner to pay cheque amount to the respondent. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, once there is no dispute qua the liability of petitioner, the evidence being sought to be produced by the petit