HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1656 OF 2009 DATE:14.07.2010 Between: State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Asst. General Manager, Hyderabad. …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and 4 others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1656 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. State Bank of Hyderabad, Overseas Branch, Somajiguda, Hyderabad to whom notice was issued by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 91 Cr.P.C for production of certain documents filed this revision petition. 2. The documents which are summoned from State Bank of Hyderabad are as follows: 1. Application filed at the time of opening of account in Current Account bearing No.62051839807 along with the extracts of the resolutions of the Board meetings filed for opening and operation of the account from time to time along with covering letter/letters. 2. The Extracts of resolution for operation of Cash Credit Account along with covering letter. 3. The documents filed in releasing of credit facilities under various categories sanctioned by the Bank to M/s. BEML Midwest Ltd. 4. The forward contracts executed on behalf of M/s. BEML Midwest Limited with State Bank of Hyderabad, Overseas Branch, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, along with all the enclosures and the documents of the contracts submitted in support of forward contract. The said notice was issued during enquiry of private complaint by the lower court filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant against the respondents 3 to 5/A-1 to A-3 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In pursuance of the said notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C, State Bank of Hyderabad produced certified copies of the above documents as per Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. By the impugned order, the lower court insisted for production of original documents listed above. 3. It is contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the bank is entitled to produce certified copies as per the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act and is not obliged to produce original documents into Court. None of the above document Nos.1 to 4 fall within the definition of ‘Bankers’ Books contained in Section 2(3) of the said Act. Section 2(3) of the Act reads as follows: “(3) “bankers’ books” include ledgers, day-books, cash- books, account-books and all other records used in the ordinary business of the bank, whether these records are kept in written form or stored in a micro film, magnetic tape or in any other form of mechanical or electronic data retrieval mechanism, either onsite or at any offsite location including a back-up or disaster recovery site of both;” The lower court did not direct the petitioner/bank to produce any of its books, but directed to produce loan documents pertaining to the loan advanced to the joint venture by name BEML Midwest company. Be it a criminal case or be it a civil suit, any bank is obliged to file all the original loan documents into court. It can only claim privilege or facility of production of certified copies in respect of those books, ledgers etc., which are required for the bank in day-to-day business of the bank. So the contention that the bank has complied with notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C by production of certified copies of the documents summoned as per the Act, is not legal. 4. It is next contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Section 91 Cr.P.C has no application herein because the lower court did not take cognisance of the offences mentioned in the complaint or did not refer the complaint to the police for investigation. In all the matters touching cognisable offences, the Magistrate is not obliged to refer the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is equally open to the Magistrate to enquire the complaint by himself by following the procedure prescribed by Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C and take cognisance of the offences in case the offences are prima facie made out. Section 91 Cr.P.C can be invoked not only during the stage of investigation, but also during the stage of enquiry and also trial or other proceeding. Pre-cognizance enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C is an enquiry contemplated under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the only question under Section 91 Cr.P.C left to be addressed is whether the documents summoned are necessary or desirable for the purpose of enquiry. As per allegations in the complaint, the accused are stated to have fabricated extracts of two resolutions dated 16.01.2008 and 27.06.2008. The said alleged fabricated extracts of resolutions are the crucial documents to determine existence of forgery or fabrication touching offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 IPC. Without the original documents before the criminal court and without the original documents being sent to an expert for scrutiny of signatures etc. in case desired by the lower court, the lower court cannot proceed with pre- cognizance enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that production of original extracts of those two resolutions submitted by the loanees to the bank are most essential for the purpose of the pending complaint in the lower court. In so far as other documents out of the above listed documents are concerned, it would be sufficient if the bank produces certified copies of those documents. They cannot be called as certified copies and they can be described as only attested Photostat copies because Bankers’ Books Evidence Act does not apply in respect of those documents. 5. In the result, the petitioner/bank is directed to produce original extracts of resolutions dated 16.01.2008 and 27.06.2008 submitted by the loanees at the time of sanction and thereafter of the loan. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:14.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1656 OF 2009 Date:14.07.2010 Gk.