ORDER : 1. In this petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, complainant who is complainant before the trial Court has challenged the common order dated 17.10.2020, in C.C.No.8698/2018 on the file of XV ACMM, Bengaluru, rejecting application filed under Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act and application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, the complainant has contended that he has filed the complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Accused had engaged the services of the complainant for various legal opinion, documents and also for litigation. He had informed the accused that his professional fees would be Rs.20 lakhs and accordingly, invoice dated 01.06.2017 was raised. It was accepted by the accused under his signature. Since the legal service was given on various dates, a collective bill was issued. Towards payment of the same, accused issued cheque dated 01.07.2017 for Rs.20 lakhs. However, when presented for realization, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, after issuing legal notice complaint came to be filed in C.C.No.8698/2018. After appearance, accused offered to settle the case for Rs.10 lakhs, which was not accepted by the complainant. 4. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, accused counsel questioned him regarding the documents in respect of which the legal opinion was given. In this regard complainant filed application under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking permission of the Court to produce copies of the documents and application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW-1. However, based on the objections filed by accused, the trial Court rejected both the applications, which is being challenged in the present petition. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that after furnishing the legal opinion, the complainant is left with the Xerox copies and he cannot be expected to produce the original documents. Since the original documents are with the accused, complainant cannot produce the same and hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for accused submitted that all the documents sought to be produced by the complainant does not pertains to the accused and they are not relevant to the case on hand. Since the original documents are with the accused, complainant cannot produce the same and hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for accused submitted that all the documents sought to be produced by the complainant does not pertains to the accused and they are not relevant to the case on hand. In the absence of production of original records, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications filed by the complainant and pray to reject this petition also. 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the material placed on record makes it evident that complainant, who is a practicing advocate has filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, alleging that for the legal advice given by him, the accused was due to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs towards Professional fees and issued the subject cheque and on presentation, it came to be dishonoured. After issuing legal notice and on the failure of accused to pay the amount due under the cheque complaint is filed. 8. During the course of cross-examination of the complainant who is examined as PW-1, the accused has questioned him as to whether there are any documents to show that legal advice was given and the said fees cover which period, etc. In fact, the complainant has deposed that Rs.20 lakhs fees pertains to 2 criminal cases conducted by him and legal advice given. He has also deposed that he has given legal advice in respect of Sy.Nos.18/2 measuring 18 guntas, 45, 46, 48/1, 50, 50/2, 50/3, 51/1 or 2, totally measuring 15 acres 10 guntas and the documents pertaining to these properties are not produced. 9. After his cross-examination, the complainant has chosen to file application under Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act to permit him to produce the photo copies of documents and mark them and also to recall him for further examination-in-chief. After considering the objections filed by the accused, the trial Court rejected the said applications which is being challenged in the present petition. 10. Admittedly, the complainant is not in possession of the original documents upon which he has allegedly given legal advise or conducted the case pertaining to the accused. Therefore, he cannot be expected to produce the original documents, which are supposedly in possession of accused and he cannot be expected to produce them. 10. Admittedly, the complainant is not in possession of the original documents upon which he has allegedly given legal advise or conducted the case pertaining to the accused. Therefore, he cannot be expected to produce the original documents, which are supposedly in possession of accused and he cannot be expected to produce them. The grievance of accused is that all these documents on which the complainant is relying does not pertains or belong to him and that he has not taken any legal advise from the complainant in respect of these documents and that the complainant is simply producing all the documents in his possession to show as though he has given legal advice to the accused on these documents and claimed exorbitant fee of Rs.20 lakhs. 11. Of course, it is always open to the accused to cross-examine the complainant and demonstrate that all the documents on which he is relying does not belong to him and he never sought any legal advice on them. When the complainant is not in possession of the original records, he cannot be expected to produce them. As per Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, copies made from the original by mechanical process, which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and the copies compared with such copies come under the definition of secondary evidence. Under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, when the original shown to or appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom such documents are sought to be proved, secondary evidence may be lead. 12. Of course, the person is required to issue notice to such person in whose possession the original document is there and on his failure to lead secondary evidence. In the present case, the original of these documents are allegedly in possession of the accused and in fact, he is disputing that he is in possession of the said documents and that he had sought legal advice on them. However, the proceedings between the parties is summary in nature. In the above circumstances, the trial Court is not justified in refusing the production of the said documents and recalling PW-1 for further examination-in-chief. 13. However, the proceedings between the parties is summary in nature. In the above circumstances, the trial Court is not justified in refusing the production of the said documents and recalling PW-1 for further examination-in-chief. 13. As noted earlier, it is always open to the accused to demonstrate that these documents are not relevant to the case on hand and that he never sought any legal advice on the said documents and that the complainant has simply dumped the documents available in his office to show that he has given legal advice on them for claiming exorbitant professional fee. Of course, it is all always open to the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued to the complainant towards any legally recoverable debt or liability and to demonstrate how the cheque in question has reached the hands of complainant. 14. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the following: ORDER : (i) Petition filed by the complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.10.2020 in C.C.No.8698/2018 on the file of XV ACMM Bengaluru is set aside. (iii) The applications filed by complainant under Section 65(c) of The Indian Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C are allowed. (iv) The complainant is permitted to produce the documents in question and give evidence for marking them. (v) Of course, the accused is at liberty to cross-examine PW-1 with regard to the said documents . (vi) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.