JUDGMENT This revision has been filed by the applicant/complainant against the impugned order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the learned lower revisional Court in Cr. Rev. No. 245/2004 whereby set aside the order passed by the trial Court dismissing an application of the non-applicant/accused filed u/s 91 of the CrPC for calling certain documents which are in possession of the applicant. The applicant has filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). In short his case before the trial Court is that the father of the non-applicant named Mohanlal Patidar was serving in the Karneswar Cold Storage, Karnavad, Tehsil Bagli, District Dewas as Secretary. During the course of his service, Mohanlal Patidar, the father of the non-applicant Babulal committed misappropriation of Rupees twenty lakhs and for this amount executed an agreement in favour of Kameswar Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. for repayment of this amount within certain period as mentioned in the agreement. Thereafter, the non-applicant being a son of Mohanlal issued cheques on different dates towards the payment of the amount said to have been misappropriated by his father but the same could not be honoured because of stop payment. The non-applicant, after service of summons, appeared before the trial Court and filed an application u/s 91 of CrPC whereby prayed for production of documents of accounts of Kameswar Cold Storage i.e. cash book, ledger book, bank book, balance sheet, trial balance account and statement. He has also mentioned in this application questioning about the issuance of cheque or receipt of the cheque by the applicant in his own personal name i.e. Surajmal Patidar. The non-applicant prayed for production of all these document to cross examine the witnesses which will be adduced by the applicant and also mentioned in the application that these documents will be required in his defence. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 17.3.2004 dismissed this application against which the non-applicant went up in revision and the learned revisional Court has allowed the same and directed for issuance of order by the learned trial Court for production of the accounts documents from the Cold Storage for the decision of the case. The learned counsel for applicant has vehementally submitted that in the agreement, the father of the applicant has admitted the misappropriation of rupees twenty lakhs and for this purpose he has already filed Auditor report alongwith the complaint. The learned counsel for applicant has vehementally submitted that in the agreement, the father of the applicant has admitted the misappropriation of rupees twenty lakhs and for this purpose he has already filed Auditor report alongwith the complaint. He has also submitted that as per provision u/s 139 of the Act, the burden is on the non-applicant to prove that the cheque was not issued for debt or legal liability. Therefore, these documents are not at all necessary to be called before the trial Court for his defence. He has also submitted that on the said agreement the father of the applicant has admitted the liability and the same was also filed by the applicant before the trial Court and the applicant has not denied the same. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for non-applicant is that the non-applicant was not at all concerned with the Cold Storage. He was also not party to the agreement between the Karneswar Cold Storage and his father Mohanlal Patidar. He is not bound by any such agreement, therefore, he can question the allegations levelled by the applicant in the complaint because the cheques were issued by him. Therefore, for his defence, the account books as mentioned in the application u/s 91 of the CrPC are necessary for effective cross examination of the applicant and his witnesses. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the complaint, application u/s 91 CrPC and order passed by both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that as per own saying by the applicant, burden u/s 139 of the Act is upon the non-applicant who has issued the cheque. Therefore, he must be given proper and full opportunity to defend himself and discharge his burden for which if he thinks that the account books of the Cold Storage are essential at the time of cross examination of the complainant and his witnesses, he should be made available those account books especially when he was neither serving under the said company nor he was party to the agreement. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the learned revisional Court. Therefore, the present revision filed by the applicant against the impugned order is hereby dismissed.