R MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. T V MYLSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court NO.1) Coimbatore in C.R.P.No.1 of 2004 which emanates from an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.9680 of 2003 in C.C.No.79 of 2002.

(2.) THE application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to direct the respondent/complainant to produce 12 documents listed under the said application. THE learned trial Judge, after going through the affidavit to the application and also the counter filed by the respondent, has passed an order directing the respondent to produce the documents which are available out of 12 documents listed under the application. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred a revision under C.R.P.No.1 of 2004 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1) Coimbatore.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant in C.C.NO.79 of 2002 would contend that only with a view to drag on the proceedings, the revision petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.79 of 2002, has filed the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and that he has produced all the available documents sought for by the revision petitioner herein under the applications filed by him under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 29.11.2002, 29.1.2003 and 23.9.2003 and under the present application. THE learned counsel would further contend that he has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against the accused and in a petition like this, this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court have decided that it is a prerogative of the trial Court to decide and to pass necessary orders for summoning and production of a document under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., If the trial Court considers it as relevant and desirable and necessary to decide the issue in that particular case can then order the petition filed under Section91 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on a decision reported in State of Orissa -vs.- Debendra Nath Padhi (2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 415) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: