Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases supports refusal to summon documents where defence need is not shown.

In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, once the drawer admits signature on the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates that the cheque was issued toward discharge of a debt or liability, subject to rebuttal by the accused through available material such as records, receipts, income tax returns, or books of account. A request under Section 91 CrPC to summon documents from the complainant was not justified where the documents were not shown to be necessary for deciding the case and the application was filed belatedly without a sufficient explanation. The refusal to summon the documents was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning documents in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified in view of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of that Act.

Analysis: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the drawer admits his signature on the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 operates that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability unless the contrary is proved. The accused can rebut that presumption by material available to him, including his own records, receipts, income tax returns, and books of account. The documents sought from the complainant were not shown to be necessary for deciding the case. The application was also filed belatedly after the case had been fixed for defence evidence for a considerable period, and no sufficient explanation for the delay was offered. On these facts, the request under Section 91 was found to be an attempt to delay the proceedings rather than a bona fide necessity for defence.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the documents was upheld and the revision was dismissed.

---