SHIVENDRA DHAKRE Vs. SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being crestfallen by the order dated 30-03-2017 passed by the trial Court (JMFC, Gwalior) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner as accused under section 91 of Crimial P.C. 1973 read with section 165 of Indian Evidence Act has been rejected.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before JMFC, Gwalior under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of allegations that the complainant has granted loan of Rs. 86 lacs to the petitioner and in lieu thereof petitioner issued two cheques details of which are mentioned in the petition memo which got dishonoured and therefore, the case has been filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the trial Court. During cross examination, complainant in para 10 has admitted that he is engaged in occupation of Priesthood and is filing income tax return for last 3 to 4 years through his Chartered Accountant. Further in para 11 of his cross examination complainant admitted the fact that he granted loan of Rs. 86 lacs to the petitioner but the date has not been mentioned in the complaint and also shown his ignorance about mentioning of the loan in his income tax returns. Therefore, petitioner had occasion to file application under section 91 of Crimial P.C. 1973 in which he sought bank statement of complainant through which he withdrew Rs. 86 lacs. Similarly petitioner sought copy of PAN card and address proof of respondent/complainant as well as income tax returns of financial year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 etc.

(3.) Respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by filing reply of the said application. In the reply, he admitted the fact regarding submission of income tax returns but he raised the point that the stage on which petitioner has sought those documents are not proper stage, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the application. Learned Court below considering the rival submissions, dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that petitioner cannot seek document under section 91 of Crimial P.C. 1973 during cross examination of complainant. Petitioner can avail this remedy only when his evidence would start. Challenging the order of trial Court, petitioner preferred, criminal revision before the revisional Court but the same was not maintainable, therefore, this petition has been preferred by petitioner under section 482 of Crimial P.C. 1973