Mandeep Narula v. Gurjeet Singh Narula

1. Vide this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.04.2011, whereby learned MM has issued summons to the Commissioner of Income Tax for producing the relevant Income Tax Return of the complainant for the period of assessment yea r 200l-2002 and 2002-2003 of late Sh. Yashpal Narula and Ms. MandeeP Narula. I 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution Evidence is going on in the trail court and in the mid of the evidence, learned MM has issued summons to the Commissioner of Income Tax for producing the relevant ITR record of the petitioner/complainant. Further, it is submitted that, if the respondent questions the authenticity of the same, only then the petitioner may produce the original record to o/o 2011:DHC:9272 prove the same.

3. Even otherwise, the petitioners may have not mentioned in the Income Tax Return about the cash advanced to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that to cut short the controversy in the issue, he has moved an application under section 91 Cr.P.C., wherein impugned order was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits money in question was advanced in year 2000 by late Sh. Yashpal Narula to his cousin Gurjeet Narula.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if it r-r is not mentioned in lTR, the cash transaction cannot be nullified only on this ground.

7. Since, the P.E. is going on, at this stage it amounts to the delay of the case.

9. I am of the opinion, at the time of leading of the evidence by the respondent, learned MM may ask the relevant ITR record i to be produced, if required.

10. Even otherwise, Section 139 Nl Act is in favour of the holder of the cheques.

11. I find force in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 25.04.20TL is set aside. Learned MM is directed to continue to lead the evidence.,[1] !2. Crl. M.C. L822l20tL is allowed and is disposed of in the above terms.

13. No order as to costs. cRL. M.A. 6567/2011 (STAYI The application is dismissed as being infructuous. @ry suREsH KAIT,J AUGUST L[6], 2011 j -l iit