NI Court, Commercial Court Proceedings Stand On Equal Footing; Accused Entitled To Original Records For Defence: Rajasthan High Court

During the investigation, the police seized and collected several original documents, including the cheque-book counterfoil containing the respondent's handwriting and endorsements, as well as the original Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. These records had subsequently been summoned by the Commercial Court pursuant to an order of the High Court.

Claiming that the original documents were necessary to effectively confront the respondent during cross-examination in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner moved an application seeking summoning of the original records. The trial court, however, rejected the plea, holding that summoning the records would unnecessarily delay the proceedings before the Commercial Court and amount to overreaching the High Court's directions. It further observed that certified copies of the documents were sufficient for the purpose.

Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

After hearing the parties, the High Court observed that where proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are dependent on a cheque which has allegedly been found to be interpolated in parallel criminal proceedings, the accused has a right to summon the original records in order to effectively confront the complainant and set up a proper defence.

The Court further held that the proceedings before the NI Court and the Commercial Court stood on an equal footing and that the records were necessary in both matters to ensure a fair trial and a just conclusion. Merely because the records had been summoned in another proceeding, the petitioner could not be made to suffer.

Referring to Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court noted that the provision empowers courts to summon documents or other material necessary for the purposes of an inquiry or trial. While observing that the width of this power is extensive, the Court added that its exercise is subject to the requirements of necessity and desirability.

“The first and foremost requirement of Section 94 BNSS (91 CrPC) is that the document sought to be summoned should be necessary or desirable, and if this condition is fulfilled, the same has to be looked into to arrive at a just and fair conclusion in the trial.”

In the facts of the case, the Court found that the cheque formed the foundation of the proceedings and that the alleged interpolation went to the root of the dispute, affecting the very sustainability of the complaint. It therefore held that a balance had to be maintained between the two proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application and directed that the original records be transmitted from the Commercial Court to the NI Court on the next date of hearing. It further directed that, in the event of any clash between hearing dates in the two proceedings, the courts concerned would suitably adjust the schedule.

The petition was accordingly allowed.