1 CriA-4117-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4117 OF 2009 Mukesh B. Bhagat ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondent Mr. Mukesh Bhagat, applicant present in person. Smt. A.A.Mane, APP, for the respondent No.1. Shri Parvez Ubhare, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the applicant in person and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The applicant was an employee of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. He filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC against the respondent No.2. According to him, the accused had written an undated letter to his employer which was received by the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 9.10.2003 That letter, according to the applicant, contains certain defamatory material. The respondent No.2/accused made an application on 14.8.2007 under Sec.91 Cr.P.C. to issue summons to the 2 CriA-4117-09.sxw Insurance Co. to produce the master/personal/record file of the complainant. That application was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 13.9.2007. That order was challenged by the present applicant in Revision Application No.1210 of 2007. The learned Sessions Court felt that the record prior to 9.10.2003, when the undated letter was received by the Insurance Co., was not necessary and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate was modified. The Sessions Court in the said Revision Application directed thus :- "Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai be summoned for producing the documents after the application of the accused which was received on 09/10/2003 and further documents in respect of the company, if any, till taking the retirement." Possibly, in the words "documents in respect of the company" in the part of sentence, word "company" was wrongly typed and possibly, the Sessions Court wanted to mention the documents in respect of the complainant, if any, till taking the retirement. After that order, the respondent No.2 made an application dated 24.4.2008 to issue summons to the Insurance Company. The Summons was issued on 8.5.2008. On the same day, the Insurance Co. addressed a letter to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and produced the letter from the accused Barkat Gadiyali received on 9.10.2003 along with the annexures. In second part of the letter, the 3 CriA-4117-09.sxw Insurance Company informed that they had received VRS application from the employee M.B.Bhagat i.e. the applicant on 15.1.2004 and it was accepted on 27.2.2004. The certified true copy of the acceptance letter was enclosed along with that letter dated 8.5.2008. The last sentence in second para of the letter reads thus :- "As per our records we say that there is no letter or any other documents or correspondence between 09/10/2003 to 15/01/2004. Thus, it appears that the Insurance Company informed the Court that they had only the documents the certified copies of which were produced and that they had no other documents or correspondence between 9.10.2003 to 15.1.2004. 3. It appears that thereafter the respondent No.2/accused filed another application dated 17.11.2008 before the learned Magistrate requesting to issue summons to the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company to produce the master/personal/record file of its ex-employee Mukesh Bhagat from 9.10.2010 onwards. This application was opposed by the applicant. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 4.4.2009 directing the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company to produce all the documents of 4 CriA-4117-09.sxw ex-employee Mukesh Bhagat from 9.10.2003 onwards. That order is challenged in the present Application. 4. In fact, it appears that as per the order passed by the Sessions Court, summons was issued and that summons was complied by the Insurance Company as per their letter dated 8.5.2008. It is true that along with that letter, they had not produced the original documents, but certified true copies. However, in the application dated 17.11.2008, accused nowhere stated that the summons issued by the Court for production of the documents was not complied or that it was not complied in respect of particular documents. It was a simple application seeking direction to produce the master/personal/record file of Mukesh Bhagat from 9.10.2003 onwards. There was no propriety in issuing the fresh summons or directions to the Insurance Company to produce the documents as the Insurance Company had already complied with the earlier summons. If the accused would make specific statement that the summons of the Court was not complied with or that it was not fully complied with or that it was not complied with in respect of the particular documents or correspondence, the Magistrate could have issued fresh order in respect of that part of the summons which was not complied. However, on careful perusal of the application dated 17.11.2008, I do not find any such allegation and it appears to be simply 5 CriA-4117-09.sxw repetition of the earlier request and, therefore, the imugned order is also repetition of the earlier order issuing summons, for which there was no justification. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)