Cheque dishonour prosecutions: court allowed further cross-examination and financial records, but upheld refusal to summon bank managers.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the High Court held that where the alleged liability was substantial and the complaints did not clearly disclose the mode, date, or split of payment, further cross-examination of the complainant and production of income tax returns and bank statements were necessary to test the foundational facts and rebut the statutory presumption. The refusal to recall the complainant and to summon those financial records was set aside. However, the refusal to summon the accused's bank managers was upheld, as the accused could rely on his own bank evidence and the need for third-party summons could be reconsidered later if warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the orders refusing recall of the complainant and production of income tax returns and bank statements should be set aside in the cheque dishonour prosecutions; (ii) Whether the orders refusing to summon the accused's bank managers under the relevant procedural provision should be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the orders refusing recall of the complainant and production of income tax returns and bank statements should be set aside in the cheque dishonour prosecutions.

Analysis: The complaints concerned a very large alleged liability and the complainants had admitted that they were income tax assessees and maintained bank accounts through which part of the amount was said to have been transferred. The complaints did not clearly disclose the manner, date, or split of payment by cash and bank transfer. The accused had also placed a detailed defence in the reply notice. In such circumstances, further cross-examination of the complainant and production of the documents sought were considered necessary for a proper appreciation of the foundational facts and for a fair opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall the complainant and to summon the income tax returns and bank statements was set aside and the petitions on these aspects were allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders refusing to summon the accused's bank managers under the relevant procedural provision should be interfered with.

Analysis: The accused was not denied the ability to rely on his own bank statements by examining himself or by producing the statements obtained from his bank. Summoning bank managers was not treated as necessary at that stage. The trial court's view was also that the procedural power could still be exercised later if required on the basis of the evidence adduced during further cross-examination and the documents produced or withheld.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the bank managers was upheld and the challenge to that order was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to the extent of enabling further cross-examination of the complainant and production of the requested financial records, while the refusal to summon the accused's bank managers was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the foundational facts of a large cheque dishonour claim are insufficiently disclosed and relevant financial records are admittedly in the complainants' possession, denial of recall and document production may prejudice a fair trial and impede rebuttal of the statutory presumption; however, summons to third-party bank officials may still be refused if the accused can prove the same facts through his own evidence and the court may revisit the need later.

---