A V ANBU CHEZHIAN Vs. P AMBIKADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.11 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vedarnayam and the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein filed an application before the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C., summoning documents such as bills, accounts and income-tax returns relating to the period 1995-2004 to be produced by the complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had preferred this criminal revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the complaint, the cheque was given by the petitioner to the respondent and the cheque amount was Rs.10,50,000/-. The petitioner/accused was doing business with the respondent/complainant for the past ten years and he had paid all the dues and only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is due. The blank cheque which was given by the petitioner herein to the respondent as security had been misused by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises with regard to the liability, no presumption could be drawn for the existence of the legally recoverable debt and the accused is also entitled to prove his defence that there is no legally recoverable debt. To prove the innocence of the accused, the documents are required. It is the duty of the complainant to show how there is a legally recoverable debt and he should have maintained an account for the business transaction and it should have been reflected in the income tax account also. As such, duty is cast upon the complainant to produce the documents, but the learned Magistrate by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner has caused a prejudice to the accused and it also hinders the defence case.

(3.) The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008(1) Crimes 227 (SC) (Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Pattatraya G.Hegde).