Jayalakshmi Reddy vs Mr. Manoj Gupta

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner in respect of the petition filed assailing the order of the court, below on the application filed u/s 91 r/w 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Petitioner.

Submission of Petitioner''s counsel is that, in respect of the case involving Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant has contended that, he had given the Petitioner Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during the last week of April 2007. Therefore, in order to ascertain the capability of the complainant to pay that much of amount by way of cash, the Petitioner sought for a direction to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bangalore to produce the income tax returns filed by the complainant for the assessment year 2008-2009 and also sought for production of the audit report by M/s. Mars Viniyog Pvt. Limited for the year 2007-2008 as according to the Petitioner the complainant has contended that, he had received Rs. 54 lakhs under Ex. P8 from M/s. Marks Viniyog Pvt. Limited.

Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that the documents are very much relevant for the Petitioner to prove that the complainant had no such amount of Rs. 20 lakhs with him so as to give in cash to the Petitioner during last week of April 2007. He also referred to the cross examination portion of P.W. 1 wherein the witness has stated that he can produce tax audit report of M/s. Mars Viniyog Pvt. Limited for the year 2007-2008.

In the above circumstances, the relief sought is to set aside the order of the trial court on the aforesaid application filed by the Petitioner and to allow the same.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the impugned order. I find that certain documents have already been produced by the complainant which also include the tax returns for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Although the Petitioner disputed the statement annexed to Ex. P7 and also Ex. P8, I am of the view that no interference is called for with the order of the trial court for the following reasons.

If at all the case of the Petitioner is that the complainant had no capacity to advance Rs. 20 lakhs by way of cash during April 2007, the Petitioner can very well bank upon the assessment made during the relevant year and can establish from the document produced by the complainant and also by independent evidence by the Petitioner himself that in the year 2007 during April last week, the complainant was not having Rs. 20 lakhs cash with him and this can be established by the Petitioner by referring to the relevant income tax returns apart from placing any other evidence.

As far as the complainant''s admission to produce the tax audit report of M/s. Mars Viniyog Private Limited is concerned, it is for the court to consider the said admission made by the complainant and if such audit report is produced by the complainant, the trial court is at liberty to draw whatever inference it is capable of from the absence of such a report being produced by the complainant.

For the above reasons, these petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.