IN THE HIGH COURT OF IKARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH. DHARAWAD Dated the 1 8 day of April 20 11 :BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : VJAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1059’ 2011 BETWEEN: Smt. Shailashree Umarnahesh\var Bhat. Age: about 35 years, R/o C/o Urnamaheshwar Ganapathi Bhat, Nityanancla Trading Company, K.BRoad, Yallapura, Uttara Kannada, Karawara. Petitioner By Sri A.C. Purad. Advocate. AND: Dwaraka Souharda Credit Sahakari Limited. Ankola. reptd. by its Manager Smt. Veena Raghunath Naik, Age: about 33 years. R/o K.C.Road. Ankola, Uttara Kannada District, IKarawara. Respondent Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 5.4.2011 passed by the JMPC Court, Ankola, in C.C.No, 469/2007 on the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. 2 This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A.C.Purad and the only reason for the petitioner to approach this court is the order passed by the trial court on the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. rejecting the said application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain documents were necessary in order to establish the defence of the accused in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial court ought not to have rejected the said application filed. According to the petitioner, the documents sought for are very relevant and necessary to establish the portion of the amount repaid by the petitioner towards the loan amount. 3. Having thus heard the petitioner’s counsel and after perusing the impugned order passed by the trial k 3 S court, which is produced at page- 15 onwards, in my view, the learned trial judge has given valid reasons for not allowing the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the observations of the learned trial judge that the documents sought for are not necessary and, moreover, the complainant having produced Exs.P- 1 to P- 13, which includes the ledger book extract at Ex.P-9, the order of the trial court, therefore, does not call for any interference. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected. Sd/ JUDGE; ckc/