Khaleel Mirza Khalid vs Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—An application filed by the petitioner/accused, under S. 91 of Cr.P.C. having been dismissed on 17.03.2014 by the Trial Judge and Criminal revision petition filed there against having been rejected by the Presiding Officer, FTC-XII, Bengaluru City, this petition was filed to set aside the said orders and grant the consequential relief.

Respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 19799/2009 pending on the file of XL ACMM Court, Bengaluru. In the said case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). Summons having been received, the petitioner has appeared and pleaded not guilty. Complainant has got examined himself as PW-1 and was cross-examined. Statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded under S. 313 Cr.P.C. An application filed under S. 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the loan agreement, books of account, ledger extract, the possession of which were admitted by PW-1 in the cross-examination was rejected by the Trial Judge. The revision petition filed there against was held as barred under S. 397(2) of Cr.P.C., and an order of rejection was passed.

The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under S. 138 of the Act. PW-1 having stated that, the accused having taken business loan, entered into an agreement and that there are books of accounts in proof of the transaction, the aforesaid application was filed. By wrongly placing the burden of proof on the accused, the application was rejected on 17.03.2014.

Sri D.R. Manjunath, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the production of the records shown in the application is absolutely essential. By relying upon on S. 91 Cr.P.C., he submitted that the production of the same being relevant, the prayer ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that the approach of the Trial Court and also the impugned orders being illegal, interference is warranted.

Sri Chandrashekar S.N., learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that only to delay the decision in the case, the application was filed belatedly and in the circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned orders is warranted.

Having perused the record and considered the rival contentions, it is clear that the Courts below have committed error and illegality in passing the impugned orders. P.W. 1 examined to prove the case of the complainant, has admitted the possession of the documents relating to the business loan. The cheque in question was issued towards the said transaction. The Trial Judge, by adopting a wholly erroneous approach has dismissed the application. In view of the bar under sub-section (2) of S. 397 Cr.P.C. the revision petition has been dismissed.

Fair trial is the main object of the criminal procedure and fairness should not be hampered. Every accused is entitled to fair trial. Just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case is the right of an accused. Breach of the same is unacceptable, since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. Trial is conducted for the purpose of searching the truth.

The petitioner, by his conduct, has not caused any delay in deciding of the case. There is no dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner. On account of a wrong approach, the application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.

Keeping in view the record of the case and there being no dispute with regard to the availability of the documents in terms of the deposition of the PW-1, the application ought to have been allowed. The dismissal of the application being illegal, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Application filed on 16.01.2014 under S. 91 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The complainant shall produce the records, the possession of which has been admitted by PW-1 during the course of his cross-examination.