PANKAJ KUMAR SACHETI Vs. PRAVEEN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this criminal misc. petition, has assailed the order dated 24.07.2015 whereby his application moved under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling of the statement of account of the respondent - complainant - firm, was rejected at the stage of defence.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which was moved at the stage of evidence, relying on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Versus Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568.

(3.) This Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3542/2019: Anil Roop Mathur Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr., decided today i.e. on 27.01.2020, after considering the law in relation to Section 91 Cr.P.C. and relying upon the aforesaid judgment as well as subsequent judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Nitya Dharmananda and Anr. Versus Gopal Sheelum Reddy and Anr.: (2018) 2 SCC 93 and Bhola @ Yadvinder Singh Versus State of Rajasthan: 2013 (5) WLC (Raj.) 773, held that the powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be revoked at the stage of defence, however, it cannot be taken up at the stage of framing of the charges. In the case of T. Nagappa Versus Y.R. Muralidhar: AIR 2008 SC 9010, the Apex Court has held as under: