The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that accused persons be permitted to introduce evidence capable of rebutting the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, even if such evidence was not initially adduced due to procedural oversight. This judgment clarifies that technical rejections of applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot override substantive justice when the core defense hinges on disproving the presumption of debt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bhanu Prakash Sharma, is accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of Cheque No. 022399 dated 15.11.2019 for Rs. 1,50,000, drawn on the State Bank of India, which was returned unpaid on 20.12.2019. The complainant, Pooran Arya, alleged that the cheque was issued in discharge of a "friendly loan" extended to the petitioner. The petitioner denies any loan transaction and asserts that the cheque was issued as a remaining payment for a vehicle purchased under a BSNL contract.
Key Facts
- Cheque No. 022399 was issued on 15.11.2019 and presented for payment on 19.12.2019
- The cheque was dishonoured on 20.12.2019
- Legal notice dated 05.01.2020 was issued under Section 138 NI Act
- Complaint (SCNIA No. 121 of 2020) filed on 10.02.2020 before JMFC, Sheopur
- Exhibit D-1: Letter dated 11.01.2021 issued by SDOT, BSNL, verifying that the cheque was issued as payment for a vehicle under a contractual agreement
- The petitioner claims to have made multiple online payments totaling over ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant between November 2019 and July 2020
- Defense evidence was closed prematurely due to miscommunication between petitioner and former counsel
- The complainant denied under cross-examination any business relationship or receipt of online payments
Procedural History
- 10.02.2020: Complaint filed before JMFC, Sheopur (SCNIA No. 121 of 2020)
- 08.12.2025: JMFC dismissed applications under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. seeking bank statement and recall of complainant
- 16.12.2025: Sessions Judge, Sheopur, affirmed the JMFC’s order in Cr.R. No. 4930 of 2025
- 25.12.2025: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before High Court, Gwalior
- 12.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Recall of the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to confront him with Exhibit D-1
- Production of the complainant’s bank statements under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to prove receipt of online payments
- Setting aside of the orders dated 08.12.2025 and 16.12.2025
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that Exhibit D-1 and bank records directly contradict the complainant’s claim of a "loan" and establish a commercial transaction. The denial of evidence violates the right to a fair trial and undermines the accused’s ability to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Respondent: Did not appear despite service. No counter-submission filed.
The Legal Issue
Can a criminal court deny an accused’s application under Sections 91 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. to produce documentary evidence and recall a witness when such evidence is critical to rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on V.N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar (2021) AIR (SC) 1276, where the Supreme Court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not limited by procedural lapses and must be exercised to ensure justice. He argued that Exhibit D-1, a verified BSNL document, directly refutes the complainant’s claim of a loan and establishes a commercial transaction. The bank statements would corroborate the existence of prior financial dealings, undermining the complainant’s credibility. Denial of these applications, he contended, effectively precludes the accused from challenging the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act, violating the principles of natural justice and fair trial.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submission. No counter-arguments were presented before the Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. in the context of Section 138 NI Act proceedings. It emphasized that the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable, and the accused must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to do so. The Court observed:
"The object of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is to empower the Court to arrive at a just decision, and such power should be exercised even if there is a mistake or negligence on the part of the parties."
It noted that the petitioner’s failure to adduce Exhibit D-1 during defense was not deliberate but due to miscommunication with former counsel. The Court held that procedural negligence cannot be a ground to deny substantive justice, particularly when the evidence goes to the root of the offense. The bank statement sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was deemed essential to verify the claim of prior online payments, which, if proven, would establish a pattern of commercial dealings and refute the allegation of a personal loan.
The Court further held that the lower courts erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach, treating these applications as mere procedural formalities rather than instruments of substantive fairness. The denial of these applications, the Court concluded, would render the trial fundamentally unfair and violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The orders dated 08.12.2025 and 16.12.2025 were set aside. The Trial Court is directed to permit the production of the complainant’s bank statement under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and recall the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for limited cross-examination on the matters raised. The petitioner shall pay a cost of ₹5,000/- to the complainant. The Trial Court shall complete the proceedings within 60 days from the date of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Rebuttal Evidence Cannot Be Denied on Technical Grounds
- Practitioners must now argue that any denial of evidence under Sections 91 or 311 Cr.P.C. in NI Act cases must be scrutinized for its impact on the accused’s ability to rebut the statutory presumption
- Procedural lapses by counsel do not forfeit the right to seek recall or document production if the evidence is material
Bank Statements Are Admissible to Challenge Loan Allegations
- In cheque dishonour cases where the accused claims a commercial transaction, bank records showing prior payments can be sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to establish a pattern of business dealings
- Courts must not dismiss such applications as "fishing expeditions" without examining their relevance to the core defense
Fair Trial Trumps Procedural Formalism
- The judgment reinforces that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a remedial provision meant to ensure justice, not a tool for procedural rigidity
- Judges must proactively consider whether denying an application would result in a miscarriage of justice, especially in cases involving statutory presumptions
