IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4413 OF 2004 Madhusudhan Laxman Thatte ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Mihir Gheewala for Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.F.Lambay for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. NOVEMBER 29, 2004. NOVEMBER 29, 2004. NOVEMBER 29, 2004. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Court below has rejected the request of the Applicant, to my mind, on two reasons. The first is that the documents which are required to be produced at the instance of the Applicant were not necessary to be produced at that stage. This obviously means, at the relevant point of time, when the application was preferred by the Applicant, the prayer was premature. The Court : 2 : below has further recorded that the Respondents have claimed privilege in relation to the said document. Indeed, the Court below has not recorded any final opinion as to whether the plea of privilege as claimed by the Respondents is acceptable. 2. Viewed in this perspective, no interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is required. Dismissed. 3. At this stage, Counsel for the Applicant prays that the Trial Court be directed to expedite the trial. If such application is filed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court will be well advised to proceed with the matter and decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.