bank officials, more particularly that of the State Bank of India, which is stated to be fully owned by the Government of India and the successor to the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India is to say the least, amounts to suppressing vital information from this Court, after having taken a contra factual stand in Anx.IV and in the subsequent letter. Since the matter is at Sec.482 Cr.P.C. stage, this Court is of the view that the further action in this regard need not be pursued for the time being. In view of the clear position taken by the bank in the dishonour memo dated 28.6.2013 as well as in the later letter dated 24.5.2017, the contention of the petitioner that the account does not pertain to that bank, cannot be countenanced at least by this Court for the time being. Moreover, the complainant has the benefit of presumption engrafted in Sec.146 of the N.I. Act as stated herein above. But certainly the accused has a right to rebut such presumption and it is for the accused to devise his strategy in an appropriate manner and in case the accused so requires, he may seek summoning of the relevant documents from the State Bank of India, Kannur Branch, and if necessary, to even summon the officials as witnesses in the trial court. It is fairly submitted by Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent complainant that if such request is made by the petitioner accused at the appropriate stage before the trial court, then the complainant will have no serious objections to such course of action. So it is ordered that the trial court
