Section 91 CrPC can be used to summon income tax records in cheque dishonour defence to rebut the statutory presumption.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused may invoke Section 91 of the CrPC to summon Income Tax records, including the complainant's returns, balance sheets and supporting material, where those documents are sought to test the genuineness of the complainant's financial claims. Section 91 is not confined to documents relied on by the prosecution, and the accused remains entitled to lead defence evidence and rebut the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probability. The finality attached to orders under Section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act does not limit the court's power to require relevant records. On these principles, refusal to summon the records was unsustainable and the application ought to have been allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon Income Tax authorities to produce the complainant's income-tax returns, balance sheets and supporting records, and whether rejection of that application was justified.

Analysis: The application was sought for the defence to test the genuineness of the complainant's financial documents relied upon in the complaint. Section 91 of the Code empowers the Court to summon documents or things for the purpose of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, and that power is not confined to materials relied upon by the prosecution. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused is entitled to lead defence evidence and to rebut the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probability. The finality attached to an order under Section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not curtail the Court's power to summon relevant records in pending proceedings. On these principles, the refusal to summon the Income Tax authority was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to summon the Income Tax authorities for the relevant records, and the rejection of the application was set aside.

---