Introduction:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to a fair trial, the Rajasthan High Court has held that an accused facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be denied access to original documents necessary for his defence merely because those records have been summoned by another court in parallel proceedings. The Court emphasized that proceedings before a Negotiable Instruments Court and a Commercial Court stand on an equal footing, and one proceeding cannot be allowed to prejudice the rights of a party in another.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu in Sushma Dayal v. Praveen Lodha, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290. The case arose from an order of the trial court refusing to summon original records relating to a disputed cheque on the ground that those documents had already been called for by a Commercial Court pursuant to directions of the High Court. The petitioner challenged the refusal, contending that the original cheque, cheque-book counterfoil and forensic records were indispensable for effectively defending herself in the pending cheque dishonour proceedings.

The dispute had its genesis in a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of a cheque. Simultaneously, the petitioner alleged that the cheque had been tampered with and materially altered after it was issued. On that basis, an FIR was lodged alleging misuse and interpolation of the cheque, leading to a separate criminal investigation.

During the investigation, the police seized the original cheque, cheque-book counterfoil containing the respondent’s handwriting and endorsements, as well as the original Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. These documents later became part of the record in parallel proceedings before a Commercial Court.

Since the petitioner intended to confront the complainant during cross-examination with the original cheque and related documents to establish alleged interpolation, an application was moved before the Negotiable Instruments Court seeking production of the original records. The trial court rejected the request, holding that certified copies would sufficiently serve the purpose and that summoning the records would interfere with proceedings pending before the Commercial Court.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, raising an important question concerning the scope of an accused’s right to access original documentary evidence necessary for an effective defence.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner argued that the trial court had committed a serious legal error by refusing to summon the original records. It was submitted that the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was entirely founded upon the disputed cheque, whose authenticity itself had become the subject matter of criminal investigation. Since the petitioner had specifically alleged interpolation and manipulation of the cheque, examination of the original document was essential.

The petitioner contended that effective cross-examination could not be conducted on the basis of photocopies or certified copies. The original cheque, original cheque-book counterfoil and original FSL report were necessary to confront the complainant regarding the alleged alterations and to establish the defence during trial. Denial of access to these documents would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s right to defend herself.

It was further argued that merely because the original records had been summoned by the Commercial Court did not justify denying their production before the NI Court. Both proceedings were judicial proceedings of equal importance, and neither court could claim exclusive entitlement over the records at the cost of another litigant’s right to a fair trial.

The petitioner also relied upon Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers criminal courts to summon documents necessary or desirable for the purpose of inquiry or trial. It was submitted that the statutory power exists precisely to ensure that courts have access to original evidence whenever justice so requires.

On the other hand, the respondent supported the order of the trial court. It was argued that summoning the original records from the Commercial Court would unnecessarily delay those proceedings and defeat the purpose of earlier directions issued by the High Court.

The respondent further contended that certified copies of the documents were sufficient for conducting cross-examination. According to the respondent, production of original documents was unnecessary because the contents of the documents were already available before the petitioner through certified copies. Therefore, the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion in refusing the application.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the rival submissions, the Rajasthan High Court found that the trial court had failed to appreciate the importance of the original documents in the peculiar facts of the case.

Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the entire prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act revolved around the disputed cheque. Simultaneously, the petitioner had alleged that the cheque had been materially altered and interpolated, which formed the basis of separate criminal proceedings. Therefore, the authenticity of the cheque was not merely an incidental issue but lay at the very heart of both proceedings.

The Court held that where allegations of interpolation directly affect the validity of the cheque, the accused must be afforded every reasonable opportunity to establish such a defence. Cross-examination of the complainant on the basis of the original cheque and related documents constituted an integral part of that right.

Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the trial court, Justice Sandhu observed that certified copies could never substitute the evidentiary value of original documents in circumstances where physical examination of the document itself was necessary. The Court specifically noted that the original cheque had to be shown to the complainant during cross-examination, and such an exercise could not effectively be undertaken using photocopies.

The High Court further emphasised that the right to a fair trial includes the right to effectively cross-examine witnesses and present the best available defence. Denial of original documents merely because they were required in another proceeding would substantially impair this valuable procedural safeguard.

While examining the scope of Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that the provision grants wide powers to criminal courts to summon documents whenever they are necessary or desirable for a just adjudication. The determining factor is not convenience but whether the documents are essential for arriving at a fair conclusion.

The Court held that once the requirement of necessity is established, the power under Section 94 BNSS must ordinarily be exercised to ensure that justice is not compromised. Since the disputed cheque constituted the foundation of the prosecution, its production before the trial court became indispensable.

Justice Sandhu also rejected the trial court’s view that proceedings before the Commercial Court deserved priority over proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court categorically observed that both courts function within the judicial system on an equal footing, and neither proceeding can be permitted to prejudice the rights of parties in another pending matter.

The Court observed that if the original records remain confined to one court alone, the accused in the parallel proceedings would effectively be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to establish his defence. Such a consequence would violate the principles of natural justice and fair trial guaranteed under criminal jurisprudence.

Recognising the practical concerns regarding simultaneous use of original records, the High Court directed that the original documents be transmitted from the Commercial Court to the Negotiable Instruments Court on the next date of hearing. It further directed that if hearing dates in both proceedings happened to coincide, the concerned courts should coordinate and suitably adjust their schedules to ensure that neither proceeding suffers unnecessary delay.

The judgment highlights that procedural rules must facilitate justice rather than obstruct it. Courts are expected to adopt a balanced approach that protects the rights of parties in all connected proceedings instead of compelling one litigant to sacrifice his defence because of parallel litigation.

Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court’s order and directed production of the original records before the Negotiable Instruments Court.

The ruling serves as an important precedent reaffirming that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial extends beyond mere participation in proceedings. It includes meaningful access to original evidence whenever such evidence is necessary for effective cross-examination and presentation of a defence. The decision also clarifies that judicial coordination between parallel proceedings should be preferred over denying parties access to crucial documentary evidence, thereby ensuring that procedural fairness remains the guiding principle of the justice delivery system.