LUMEN INDUSTRIES Vs. EMMVEE SOLAR SYSTEMS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/accused have challenged an order dtd. 21/1/2020 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.9692/2016 by which, an application filed by the accused/petitioners under Sec. 91 read with Sec. 243(2) of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) The respondent/complainant initiated prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'). The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, the case was set down for trial. The substance of the dispute was that the cheque was issued by the accused towards supply of solar equipments. The defence of the accused was that the cheque was given as security and that the respondent had agreed to pay commission on the solar equipments sold. He also claimed that subsidy allowed by the Government of India was not passed on to the customers. At the trial, the respondent examined one of its officials as PW.1. In the course of his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted an e-mail addressed to the accused No.2 which was marked as Exs.D1 and D2. He also admitted that the accused had addressed a letter dtd. 31/3/2011 demanding commission for the sales of solar water heaters amounting to a sum of Rs.1,18,800.00. He also admitted that there was an agreement relating to payment of commission to the accused for sales of solar water heater. PW.1 admitted that the total invoice against the accused was a sum of Rs.33,22,632.00. When a suggestion was put to PW.1 as to the amount of subsidy that had to be released as per the policy of the Government of India, this witness was unable to disclose the same. He also admitted that there was separate account maintained for the subsidy amount payable in respect of each sales. Following the admission in evidence of PW.1, the accused filed an application under Sec. 91 read with Sec. 243(2) of Cr.P.C. to summon the following documents:-

(3.) This application was opposed by the complainant who contended that the documents sought for by the accused was in no way related to the cheque in question and that the said documents were not required for deciding the case. It was also contended that the accused did not justify with proper reason to summon the document from the custody of the complainant. It also claimed that the accused had not disclosed the purpose for which the documents were necessary. It also claimed that the accused were asking colossal documents without disclosing their necessity.