FIRM BAGHALA BROS. Vs. MANIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the accused non-petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and directed the complainant to produce the books of accounts relating to the account of the accused non-petitioner for the years 1999 to 2001. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has fried the instant criminal misc. petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) SO far as, the issuance of cheque is concerned, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is to be drawn. However, the presumption is rebuttable and onus is on the accused to establish that the cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or other liability legally enforceable. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, when the complainant came with a case that the cheque in question was for the discharge of liability of Aadhat maintained in his books of account, then it is for the accused to rebut that the cheque in question was not for the discharge of any debt or other liability legally enforceable. Considering this fact, the trial court allowed the application. In my view, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice. The matter is at the stage of defence evidence and in defence if the accused non-petitioner wants to establish that the debt or other liability was not legally enforceable, then he must be allowed to lead evidence. The petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.