KARTIKEY ENTERPRISES Vs. DEVJI EXPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order dtd. 8/10/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.195/2020 whereby learned revisional Court allowed revision filed by applicant therein, set aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No.6071/2018 allowing application filed under Sec. 91 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 by petitioner herein and directing to place on record the documents like pass-book, cash book and income tax returns.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent herein has filed an application under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act of 1881') pleading therein that petitioner issued cheque amounting to Rs.86,71,850.00 in discharge of liability. As the claim made against petitioner was of huge amount, petitioner after causing appearance, submitted an application under Sec. 91 of CrPC for production of relevant documents so as to ascertain whether at relevant point of time respondent was having such a huge amount as mentioned in the cheque. Learned Magistrate upon appreciation of pleadings made in application and submission of learned counsel for respective parties, allowed said application. However, learned revisional Court erroneously set aside that order. He contended that when amount of cheque is Rs.86,71,850.00, it is for the respondent herein to prove that he has supplied goods to petitioner herein of such a huge amount.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent would submit that it is not the case that respondent filed an application under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 stating that respondent extended hand-loan of Rs.86,71,850.00, but the application was filed pleading therein that respondent supplied fly-ash to petitioner of said value. Fly ash is tax free good. Further, in the proceeding of criminal nature under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 respondent could not be forced to submit any document on an application under Sec. 91 CrPC. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon decision in case of D.K. Chandel vs. Wockhardt Ltd. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 471.