IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.608/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. G. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE D. GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.952 13TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE BENGALURU – 560 054.
(BY SRI. RAJANNA G.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA ENGINEERING WORKS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. P. NAGARAJ S/O LATE P. PERUMAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1282/5 6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN K.N. EXTENSION YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU – 560 022.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:13.12.2018 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.23866/2017 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT PETITIONER U/S 91 OF CR.P.C. PASS ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE THOSE DOCUMENTS i.e. THE TAX RETURNS AND BALANCE SHEETS PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 AND ALSO PRODUCE THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY ALLOWING THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Rajanna G.K, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. An interlocutory application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by petitioner-accused for directing the complainant to produce the income tax returns, balance sheets pertaining to the years 2015- 2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and bank accounts before Court contending interalia that during the course of evidence complainant had admitted that he would produce those documents before Court and yet had not produced the same. Said application came to be dismissed by trial Court.
3. If documents which are agreed to be produced by a party has not been produced, it is open for the petitioner–accused to canvass such arguments as it would be available to him under law before trial Court including drawing the attention of the trial Court to draw adverse inference against respondent in not producing the same and of course in the event of such documents having any relevance to the said case. No opinion is expressed on merits.
For the aforestated reasons, petition stands dismissed subject to above observation.
SD/- JUDGE RU