S. THANGAVEL Vs. P. SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this Criminal Original Petition to set aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in CRP.No.3/2011 dated 24.03.2011 confirming the order in CMP.No.7508/2010 in C.C.No.71 of 2007 dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the accused in C.C.No.71 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial the respondent in his cross examination had deposed that the cheque transaction amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 is subject to the two payments which was mentioned in the Income Tax Returns. Hence, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to issue summon to the Income Tax Officer, Salem to produce the Income Tax Returns of the respondent for the period of two years i.e. from 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 before the trial Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem stating that the respondent/complainant in the counter statement had stated that the transaction between the petitioners and the respondent had not been shown in the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent during the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem, the petitioners preferred Revision Petition before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in CRP.No. 3 of 2011 on the ground that the documents proposed to be summoned are very essential for the petitioners to prove their innocent and to prove the contradictions and to disprove the case of the respondent/complainant. The said Revision Petition was dismissed on the ground that the proposed document of Income Tax Returns of the respondent for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are necessary for the disposal of the case and the admission if any made by the respondent during his cross examination with regard to showing the transaction in the Income Tax Account can be relied by the petitioners for drawing adverse inference against the respondent. Aggrieved against the said order, this Crl.O.P. has been filed.

(3.) EVEN though in the judgment relied on by the petitioners it has been indicated that the accused can produce all such evidence in support of his case and the Magistrate can also on the application of the accused can issue summons to any witnesses, directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing, with due respect I am not agreeing with the view expressed in the said judgment. The judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.