Facts
The complainant (Opposite Party) filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act against the Petitioner, alleging that a cheque for Rs. 65,000 issued towards the purchase of construction materials was dishonored
Source reference: p. 2, para 2(i)During the trial in ICC Case No. 15 of 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition to mark his Bar Council license and Bar Association experience certificate as exhibits
Source reference: p. 2, para 2(ii)He contended these documents were necessary to prove his status as a practicing Advocate and to disprove the complainant's allegation that he was a businessman
Source reference: p. 3, para 3(i)The trial court (J.M.F.C. (LR), Sonepur) rejected this petition on 13.01.2026, finding the documents irrelevant to the ingredients of Section 138
Source reference: p. 2, para 2(iii)Issues
1. Whether the professional qualification and status of the accused as an Advocate is a relevant fact for adjudication in a trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Source reference: p. 5, para 8Law Applied
The court relied on the Indian Evidence Act, specifically the principle that only relevant facts are admissible in evidence and irrelevant facts cannot be brought on record
Source reference: p. 4, para 5It further considered the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which pertains to the dishonor of cheques for the discharge of debt or liability
Source reference: p. 2, para 2(ii)Additionally, the court noted Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, regarding the right of advocates to practice, as raised by the Petitioner’s defense
Source reference: p. 3, para 3(i)(a)Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the primary focus of a trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the determination of whether a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and subsequently dishonored.
Source reference: p. 5, para 8The court found that the Petitioner’s professional status as an Advocate did not constitute a "fact in issue" nor did it possess any logical nexus with the statutory ingredients of the offence
Source reference: p. 5, para 8The Court observed that allowing such documents to be marked would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial, leading to avoidable delays and diverting the proceedings from the core issues of the financial transaction and the dishonored instrument
Source reference: p. 5, para 8Consequently, the documents were deemed irrelevant and inadmissible under the law of evidence.
Source reference: p. 5, para 8Holding
The High Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the documents sought to be marked were irrelevant for the just decision of the case
The Court dismissed the CRLMC and vacated any earlier interim orders
Source reference: p. 5, para 9-10The trial court’s order rejecting the acceptance and marking of the Petitioner's advocacy license and experience certificate was upheld.
Source reference: p. 5, para 8Original Court PDF
NIRANJAN KALTAvsUPENDRA BEHERA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in