Appellate courts may reject belated Section 91 applications seeking irrelevant bank statements.

The respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that he had advanced a loan of ₹2.35 lakh to the petitioner-accused and that, towards repayment, she issued a cheque dated 5 November 2013, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

The trial court convicted the petitioner, and her appeal was pending before the appellate court.

During the appeal, the petitioner sought, under Section 91 Cr.P.C., production of the complainant’s bank-account statements.

She contended that she had received only ₹85,000 from the complainant in 2010 and had issued a blank security cheque, which was subsequently filled in for ₹2.35 lakh.

The application was rejected by the appellate court, leading to the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the complainant’s bank-account statements.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS to summon the requested documents in the interests of justice.

Whether the requested bank statements were relevant and necessary for determining the petitioner’s defence that only ₹85,000 had been advanced and that the cheque for ₹2.35 lakh had been misused.

The Court applied Section 91 Cr.P.C., which permits production of documents necessary or desirable for the purposes of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, and Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It also applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, governing liability for dishonour of a cheque issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

The Court held that the existence and non-existence of the alleged loan transaction had to be assessed in accordance with the applicable burden of proof under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that production of documents at the appellate stage was not justified where they were neither relevant nor necessary and the defence had already been available to the accused during trial.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s defence regarding the ₹85,000 transaction had already been raised before the trial court, and her bank statements had been considered.

Those statements established only that ₹85,000 was credited through cheque No. 18327; they did not establish that the complainant had issued the cheque.

The petitioner had known throughout the trial, which continued from 2014 to 2022, that her bank statements did not identify the cheque drawer.

She could therefore have sought the complainant’s bank statements before the trial court, and no new circumstance had arisen during the appeal warranting production of the documents.

Further, even proof of the ₹85,000 transaction would not resolve the separate question of whether the complainant had advanced ₹2.35 lakh in cash in 2013.

The requested statements consequently did not appear relevant or necessary to adjudication of the appeal, although the petitioner remained free to argue that the alleged cash loan was improbable.

The requested bank statements were neither shown to be necessary nor sufficiently relevant, and the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to seek them during trial.

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.

However, the petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds, including the alleged improbability of the complainant’s case, during the hearing of the pending appeal.