Narayanlal And Ors vs M/S Firm Prabhudayal Munnalal And Ors

This order shall govern the disposal of both Criminal Revision No. 3562/2019 (Narayanlal vs. M/s Firm Prabhudayal Munnalal) and Criminal Revision No. 3563/2019 (Jagdishl vs. M/s Firm Prabhudayal Munnalal), as in both the revisions identical issue is involved.

Both the applicants by their separate revision have challenged the order dated 27.9.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur, whereby the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Vijaypur, District Sheopur allowing the application under Section 91 of CrPC preferred by the respondent, has been affirmed.

The facts in short are that non-applicant-M/s Firm Prabhulal Munnalal had given a cheque to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- of Union of India, Branch Beerpur on 10.9.2015 to Narayanlal (applicant of Cri.Revision No.3562/2019) and a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- of the same bank, branch and date, to Jagdish (applicant of Cri.Revision No. 3563/2019) in lieu of certain goods purchased by the firm from the applicants. When the cheques were presented before the bank for their realisation on 15.9.2015, same were returned back with the endorsement "insufficient fund". A notice was caused to the non-applicant/firm on 5.10.2015, which was not replied by the firm and payment has not been made, therefore, each applicant filed separate complaint on 29.10.2015, on which the Court took cognizance and the matter was fixed for complainant's evidence. In the meanwhile, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC for calling the documents relating to transaction and details of the goods sold. Complainants/applicants filed reply to the application. The trial Court allowed the application, against which the revision was filed by the applicants separately. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur rejected the revisions and affirmed the order passed by JMFC, Vijaypur, District Sheopur.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order is manifest illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sections 91 of CrPC and Sections 118, 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Therefore, the orders of the Courts below deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once there is a presumption of holding the cheque, the non-applicant is under obligation to prove the fact that the cheque was not given in lieu of any purchase of goods. It has also been submitted that the application under Section 91 of CrPC is not tenable as it has not been moved by the non-applicant at the appropriate stage. Therefore, prays for allowing the present revision petitions and for rejecting the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant has opposed the submissions and submitted that under Section 91 of the CrPC, the application can be moved at any stage and, therefore, the courts below have rightly allowed the application of the non-applicant. Hence, the revisions filed by the applicants deserve to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

From the order impugned, it is apparent that the Revisional Court has observed that in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam [(2009) 5 SCC 153], the revision is dismissed being not maintainable as the order passed under Section 91 of CrPC is an interlocutory order.

The question for determination in the present case is that, whether any order accepting the prayer for production of the documents is interlocutory in nature.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, [(2009) 5 SCC 153] with respect to Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., held that :-

"Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defense that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the applicant/ complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e. one on the application under Section 91 of Cr.p.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling the witness, were the order of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."

The above mentioned judgment clearly sums up the position in relation to any interlocutory order with respect to Section 91 of Cr.P.C., Therefore in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the Revisional Court has not committed any error in passing the order dated 27.9.2016.

In the result, both the revision petitions sans substance and are hereby dismissed.