IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 722 of 2007 Kishan Lal ……… Applicant. Versus Chandra Bhan ……… Respondent. Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the applicant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. Date of Judgment: 27.04.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE Despite service, private respondent is not responding. 2. The private respondent was accused in a proceeding, initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The respondent made an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of income tax returns of the complainant. That application was rejected by the Magistrate. On a revision, that application has been allowed. Hence the complainant is before this Court. 3. While allowing the revision petition, revisional court held that since the revision petitioner had disclosed payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the accused in his income tax returns 2003-04 in course of his deposition, the accused was entitled to seek the Magistrate to summon the said returns. It is not the contention in the present application that the applicant, in course of his deposition, did not say that he gave a loan of Rs. 1 lakh to the accused, and that the same was disclosed by him in his income tax returns for the years 2003-04. In other words, in order to bring home his case within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the applicant contended that debt or other liability was created by grant of such loan, which was reflected in his income tax returns for the years mentioned above. The revisional court, in the circumstances, correctly held that in such circumstances, the said income tax returns would throw light in course of deciding the matter ultimately. 2 4. There is, therefore, no scope of interference. The present application fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.04.2011 Amit