Delhi District Court
Bhaskar Chandra Jaina vs . Dheeraj Bajaj on 1 June, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(NW), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CC No.978/09
Bhaskar Chandra Jaina Vs. Dheeraj Bajaj
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I will dispose off two applications filed by the accused one u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and another u/s 91 Cr.P.C. and the brief facts necessary for these disposal are that the accused was summoned for the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act and notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. has not been served upon the accused but he has filed these two applications, one filed u/s 294 Cr.P.C. for admission/denial of certain documents and another filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of certain documents from the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the story of the complainant that he advanced a loan of Rs.1.50 Lacs to the accused in discharge of which the cheques in question were issued and his story in the second complaint that the cheques in question were issued after settlement of account of their company is a cock and bull story and to prove truth on record, the complainant is required to admit or deny the bills, statement of account, rent agreement, resignation letters of the complainant and the accused, prior to proceeding further in this case and further, is required to produce his income tax returns, the details of his purchasers, documents of settlement of account etc. to prove that the cheques in question were never issued for discharge of liability, but were handed over to the complainant for purchasing raw material for the business of the company and as such these applications are required to be allowed to prove the defence of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that at the stage of notice, documents of the accused cannot be considered which are required to be proved in his defence and the applications under consideration are only a delaying tactics and should be dismissed for which he has placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as "Monika Gogia Vs. State" reported in 20005 (2) JCC (NI) 117.
2. I have heard the submissions and have perused the record. It is now settled proposition of law that the documents relied upon by the accused cannot be considered at the stage of notice or charge, the court at the stage of framing of notice is required to look into the documents produced by the prosecution alone. It is also settled proposition of law that section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be restored at the stage of notice since the defence of the accused is not relevant at this stage. The accused can resort to these sections only at the stage of his defence as he can put the documents in cross examination to the complainant or otherwise has to issue a notice asking the complainant to produce documents, if any, in his possession at the relevant stage or else he can prove the photocopies thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the Judgment titled as "State of Orrisa Vs. D.N. Padhi" reported in AIR 2005 SC 359. In the present case, the notice has not been framed and the applications under consideration are not maintainable at this stage, the same, therefore, are dismissed with liberty to the accused to avail appropriate remedy at the appropriate stage of trial.
Announced in the open court (AMIT KUMAR)
on 01.06.2009 JSCC/MM(NW)
ROOM NO.217, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
CC No.978/09
01.06.09
Present : None for the complainant
Accused on bail with counsel
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open court today, both the applications under consideration are dismissed. Put up for framing of notice on 27.08.09.
ASCJ/MM(NW) Delhi/01.06.09