JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 the petitioners accused have approached this court for challenging the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the revisional court rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.07.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pali in Criminal Case No. 274/2006 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 Cr.P.C , 1973 to summon certain books of accounts etc. from the complainant respondent. 2. Mr. R.K. Rathi, learned counsel representing the petitioners, urged that the disputed cheque had been stolen and was misused by the complainant and as such, the trial court was under an obligation to summon the books of accounts of the complainant so as to verify the truth of the assertion made in the complaint that the complainant had supplied certain goods to the petitioners. He, thus, urged that the trial court should have summoned the documents prayed for by the petitioners by accepting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 In support of his contention, he relied upon this court''s judgment in the case of Shakti Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2011 ACD 222 (Raj). 3. Per contra, Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel representing the respondent complainant urges that the disputed cheque No. 03888196 was initially issued by the petitioners by appending the date as 31.07.2002. An FIR regarding the alleged theft of the cheque came to be filed by the petitioners accused nearly ten months thereafter and the police has given a negative final report after investigation of the said FIR. The accused revalidated the cheque on 31.07.2003 by appending signatures thereupon and thereafter, the cheque was presented and dis-honored. Thus, as per Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, the presumption available under section 139 of the NI Act clearly operates against the petitioners and there was no requirement for the trial court to have summoned the documents sought for in the belated application filed by the defence under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 4. I have heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the material available on record. 5. Suffice to say that facts of the judgment relied upon by Mr. I have heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the material available on record. 5. Suffice to say that facts of the judgment relied upon by Mr. Rathi are totally distinguishable from the case at hand because the application therein was moved to summon the income tax returns only, whereas in the case at hand, the application moved by the accused and that too belatedly before the trail court was filed with an expansive prayer for summoning the account books, cash ledger, stock register, balance sheets, profit and loss account, debtor list and income tax returns of the complainant. Suffice to say that the fact regarding the petitioners accused having revalidated the disputed cheque two months after lodging of the frivolous FIR for the alleged theft of the very same cheque is far too significant to be ignored. If the petitioners disputed their liability towards the questioned transaction, then there was no occasion for them to have revalidated the cheque. Thus, this court is of the firm opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C , 1973with the prayer for summoning the documents referred to supra. 6. Needless to say that in view of the Supreme Court''s decision in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Ors. v. Kanchan Mehta , in case the accused is able to disprove the existence of a legally enforceable debt even by preponderance of probability, the complainant would have to prove the same by leading appropriate evidence. 7. As a consequence of the above discussion, I find no infirmity, illegality or abuse of process of court being reflected in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference by exercising inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thus, the instant misc. petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.