Full Text
Translation output
$-14 to 16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 2015/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No. 6979/2012
SHONA GHAI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for Mr.Viraj R Datar,Advocate
M.A. No. 6979/2012
SHONA GHAI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for Mr.Viraj R Datar,Advocate
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCI OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
Mr. Sameer Chandra, Advocate for respondents (ii) CRL.M.C. 2016/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No.6981/2012
Mr.Viraj R Datar, Advocate
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
Mr. Sameer Chandra, Advocate for respondents (ii) CRL.M.C. 2016/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No.6981/2012
Mr.Viraj R Datar, Advocate
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Prosecutor for respondent No.l
(iii) CRL.M.C. 2017/2012 & Crl. M.A No. 6984/2012
Mr.Viraj R Datar, Advocate
(iii) CRL.M.C. 2017/2012 & Crl. M.A No. 6984/2012
Mr.Viraj R Datar, Advocate
VERSUS
Crl M.C. No.2015/2012 Crl. M.C. No.2016/2012 Crl. M.CNo.2017/2012
Page 1 2013:DHC:6756 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Prosecutor for respondent No. 1
Page 1 2013:DHC:6756 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Prosecutor for respondent No. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.09.2013 In the above captioned three petitions, challenge is to the common impugned order of 9"" February, 2012 (Annexure P-1) vide which petitioner has been called upon to produce income tax return, sales tax return and other related documents pertaining to the transaction in question.
Since the subject matter of the above captioned three petitions is similar, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties these three petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the case of petitioner- complainant stands proved on the basis of material on record and since respondent/accused has not denied signatures on the three cheques in question, therefore, the presumption arises against the accused and if the documents sought to be produced are not produced, the petitioner will face the consequences as per law.
Learned counsel for respondents/accused submits that if the said documents are available with petitioner-complainant, then they ought to
Crl M.C. No.2015/2012 Page 2 Crl M.C. No.2016/2012
Crl M.C. No.2017/2012 . J. J. J be produced, as their production is relevant to respondents/accused to rebut the statutory presumption raised against respondents/accused.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 9'^'
February, 2012 I find that petitioner-complainant cannot be compelled to produce the documents like income tax and sales tax returns etc. in respect of the transaction in question, but if the said documents are readily available with the petitioner-complainant, there should be no impediment for petitioner to produce document sought during her cross- examination, as the relevance of these documents is not required to be prejudged at this stage and it is left open to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Needless to say that if petitioner is unable to produce the documents sought, then the necessary inference would be drawn by the trial court at the appropriate stage oftrial.
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned three petitions and applications are disposed of
JUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30,2013 r Crl. M.C. No.2015/2012 Page 3
Crl. M.C. No.2016/2012 Crl. M.CNo.2017/2012
30.09.2013 In the above captioned three petitions, challenge is to the common impugned order of 9"" February, 2012 (Annexure P-1) vide which petitioner has been called upon to produce income tax return, sales tax return and other related documents pertaining to the transaction in question.
Since the subject matter of the above captioned three petitions is similar, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties these three petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the case of petitioner- complainant stands proved on the basis of material on record and since respondent/accused has not denied signatures on the three cheques in question, therefore, the presumption arises against the accused and if the documents sought to be produced are not produced, the petitioner will face the consequences as per law.
Learned counsel for respondents/accused submits that if the said documents are available with petitioner-complainant, then they ought to
Crl M.C. No.2015/2012 Page 2 Crl M.C. No.2016/2012
Crl M.C. No.2017/2012 . J. J. J be produced, as their production is relevant to respondents/accused to rebut the statutory presumption raised against respondents/accused.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 9'^'
February, 2012 I find that petitioner-complainant cannot be compelled to produce the documents like income tax and sales tax returns etc. in respect of the transaction in question, but if the said documents are readily available with the petitioner-complainant, there should be no impediment for petitioner to produce document sought during her cross- examination, as the relevance of these documents is not required to be prejudged at this stage and it is left open to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Needless to say that if petitioner is unable to produce the documents sought, then the necessary inference would be drawn by the trial court at the appropriate stage oftrial.
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned three petitions and applications are disposed of
JUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30,2013 r Crl. M.C. No.2015/2012 Page 3
Crl. M.C. No.2016/2012 Crl. M.CNo.2017/2012
JUDGMENT