Accused may summon original records under Section 94 BNSS when necessary for effective cross-examination and a fair trial.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of Cheque No. 33010963 dated 05.01.2017 for ₹70,46,032.

The petitioner subsequently lodged FIR No. 114/2017 alleging misuse and interpolation of the cheque. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent, and Criminal Case No. 2834/2019 was registered before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Udaipur.

The investigation had resulted in the seizure of original documents, including the cheque-book counterfoil bearing the respondent’s handwriting and endorsements and the original FSL report, which allegedly indicated interpolation in the cheque and counterfoil.

During the complainant’s evidence in the Section 138 proceedings, the petitioner applied under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for summoning the original record of Criminal Case No. 2834/2019 so that it could be used in cross-examination.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that the original record was already before the Commercial Court in a connected civil suit, that certified copies were sufficient, and that summoning the record would delay the proceedings; costs of ₹5,000 were imposed.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the original judicial record in Criminal Case No. 2834/2019 summoned for effectively cross-examining the complainant and presenting her defence in the Section 138 NI Act proceedings.

2. Whether the fact that the original record was already being used by the Commercial Court justified rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 94 BNSS.

3. Whether certified copies could adequately substitute the original documents where the defence concerned alleged interpolation in the cheque and cheque-book counterfoil.

The Court applied Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 91 CrPC, which empowers a court to summon documents or other things necessary or desirable for an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding.

Relying on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, the Court held that the power under Section 94/Section 91 is broad but subject to inherent limitations concerning the stage of proceedings and the requirements of necessity and desirability; the provision cannot be used for a roving or fishing inquiry.

The Court further applied the fair-trial principle that an accused must have access to material necessary for an effective defence and meaningful cross-examination, particularly where denial of such material would cause prejudice.

The Court found that the requested documents were not merely collateral or speculative material. The prosecution case in the connected criminal proceedings indicated that the very cheque forming the basis of the Section 138 complaint had been interpolated, and the original cheque-book counterfoil and FSL report therefore directly concerned the sustainability of the complaint.

Since the petitioner sought the record during the complainant’s evidence specifically to confront him with the original handwriting, signatures, endorsements, and scientific opinion, the documents were necessary and desirable within the meaning of Section 94 BNSS.

Certified copies could not serve the same evidentiary purpose where the defence required confrontation with original documents.

The fact that the record was already with the Commercial Court did not extinguish the petitioner’s right to a fair opportunity of defence; both proceedings required coordinated access to the same record, and the courts could regulate its movement and adjust hearing dates to prevent disruption.

The order dated 30.06.2026 was set aside, and the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed.

The NI Act Court was directed to call for Criminal Case No. 2834/2019 on 20.07.2026 from the Commercial Court for recording the complainant’s evidence, retain it if the evidence continued on subsequent days, and return it to the Commercial Court immediately after completion of the complainant’s evidence while retaining certified copies.

In case of conflicting dates, the courts were directed to adjust their schedules so that neither proceeding was hampered.