Udeyram Agreetak Seeds vs M/S Siddha Seeds Private Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 17917 MP

                                 1
 IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                      ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48177 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
UDEYRAM AGREETAK SEEDS S/O PUNJAB RAO
DESHMUKH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
THROUGH   ITS   PROPERITOR    RAJESH   PAWAR
(DESHMUKH) R/O VILALGE SHEELADEHI POST
BARKHED TEHSIL MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                            .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
M/S SIDDHA SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR NEELESH PAWAR S/O CHIRONJILAL JI
PAWAR DIRECTOR R/O RAILWAY STATION RAOD
NEAR CENTRAL BANK BETULGANJ DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:
                                  ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 22.09.2023, passed by the learned JMFC Betul, District Betul in SC NIA No.14/22 by which his application for production of document under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the Court below.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by Division Bench in case of Special Police Establishment Vs. Umesh Tiwari and Another (MCRC No.60404/2021) and also on a judgment passed by Apex Court wherein it has been stated that accused can also file an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. However, in said judgment, it has been stated that accused can file an application for production of document or evidence which is relied upon by the prosecution but same has not been filed and such evidence is of sterling quality then accused can apply to Court for directing prosecution to file said application. It has also been laid down that said Section cannot be used by an accused in his defence.

3. The judgment relied upon by petitioner will not come to his aid and

help. Said judgment was passed in trials which are warrant trial or sessions trial. Case of petitioner is of summery trial. In said case if Court thinks fit it can pass an order for production of document but petitioner cannot file an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of a document in his defence.

4. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.

5. Petitioner is at liberty to take all the evidence in accordance with Negotiable Instruments Act which is available to him.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2023.10.27 16:33:40 +05'30'