TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms rejection of Section 91 Cr.P.C application, citing non-essential documents and potential delay tactics.</h1> The Court upheld the rejection of the applicant's Section 91 Cr.P.C application, emphasizing the non-essential nature of the requested documents and the ... Rejection of revision application - rejection on the ground that the said application has been filed belatedly after 9 months from the date when the case was fixed for defence evidence - Held that: - The documents which are sought to be summoned from the complainant cannot be said to be necessary for the disposal of the case. The burden is on the applicant to rebut the presumption as provided under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has closed his evidence and case was fixed for recording of defence evidence about 9 months back. No explanation has been given by the complainant for not filing the application immediately after the case was fixed for his defence evidence. The document sought by the applicant are not necessary and the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C has been filed to delay the proceedings - application dismissed. Issues:1. Rejection of application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C for belated filing.2. Dispute over the necessity of documents requested by the applicant.3. Interpretation of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act regarding legal presumption.Issue 1: Rejection of Section 91 Cr.P.C ApplicationThe applicant filed a Revision against the rejection of an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C by a Judicial Magistrate. The rejection was based on the belated filing of the application, approximately 9 months after the case was fixed for defense evidence. The applicant sought various documents from the respondent/complainant related to the case, challenging the rejection on grounds of necessity for rebutting legal liability.Issue 2: Dispute Over Requested DocumentsThe applicant argued that the documents requested under Section 91 Cr.P.C were essential to rebut the legal presumption regarding the legal liability associated with the cheque in question. The applicant claimed that the cheque was issued as security and that there was no legal obligation to pay the amount. However, the respondent contended that the applicant did not dispute the signature on the cheque and that the cheque was issued for work performed by the respondent/complainant. The respondent highlighted that the trial for the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is summary in nature, and the applicant's request for documents implied a different approach akin to a money recovery suit.Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments ActThe Court analyzed Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which establishes a presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque unless proven otherwise. The Court noted that the applicant did not contest the signature on the cheque but claimed it was issued as security. The respondent argued that the cheque was payment for electrification work done. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the applicant to rebut the presumption under Section 139. Additionally, the Court found that the requested documents were not crucial for case resolution, especially considering the applicant's delay in filing the application after the defense evidence stage was fixed.In conclusion, the Court affirmed the rejection of the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C, stating that the documents sought were not necessary and the application seemed to be a tactic to delay proceedings. The Court found no grounds for interference in the Magistrate's order and dismissed the applicant's revision, upholding the original decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
