JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming with the following reliefs:- "It is therefore, most humbly and most respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed, while quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No. 1547/2016. Similarly, the Order dated 02.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be considered, as the same was passed on the technical ground after allowing the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court thinks proper and fit as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also kindly be passed in favour of present petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner-Company, are that the petitioner-Company, through its proprietor Shri Aashis Doshi, preferred an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2018; against which the petitioner-Company preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide order dated 02.03.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders. 3.1. It was further submitted that the learned trial court below erred in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish before the court that, as to how the documents sought to be produced would render any assistance to the petitioner to defend itself. 3.2. It was also submitted that the learned revisional court also erred in dismissing the revision petition so preferred by the petitioner, with the finding that the revision petition was not maintainable given that the order so assailed by the petitioner, was an interlocutory order under Section 91 Cr.P.C.. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the burden of proof lies on the complainant in regard to substantiate that the concerned debt is a legally enforceable debt. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the burden of proof lies on the complainant in regard to substantiate that the concerned debt is a legally enforceable debt. Learned counsel also submitted that more particularly, looking into the narrow scope of defence, the application so preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of the necessary documents, ought to have been allowed, to ensure the dispensation of fair and impartial justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that the learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the finding that the petitioner, in his testimony during his cross examination stated that the parties were engaged in a transaction of tiles adhesives and chemicals, for which sometimes payments were made through N.E.F.T. and that while he could not recollect the exact amounts of money so transferred, he could present the necessary statement of the same before the Court, if summoned by the court. 8. This Court further observes that the learned trial court rightly rejected the application preferred under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the finding that the documents so sought to be produced by the opposite party were within the possession of the applicant-petitioner, as revealed from his testimony. 9. This Court also observes that the learned revisional court, while deciding the revision preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, has rightly observed that the revision petition so preferred against an order passed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., was not maintainable, in view of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. as well as in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153 . 10. 10. This Court, in light of the aforesaid observations, finds that the impugned orders as passed by the learned Courts below, do not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 11. Resultantly, the present petition fails, and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.