-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1423 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1423 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1423 OF 2007 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 1865 & 1866 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 1865 & 1866 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 1865 & 1866 OF 2007 A.B.& U.Communications Pvt. ltd. and others .... Petitioners versus Dhaval Eenterprises & anr. ...... Respondent. Mr. Ramesh Pandey for the petitioner Mr. J.P.Shah for M/s. J.P.S.Legal for the respondent. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1 The petitioner in W.P. No.1423/07 is the original complainant who has instituted a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respsondent/accused. The respondent has not denied the fact of having issued cheques duly signed by it in favour of the complainant. However, it is the case of the respondent/accused that after he issued the cheques, and before the cheques were presented, he learnt that the amount payable by the accused was infact paid to the complainant and as such there was no legally recoverable dues from the accused. The case of the accused is that the accused acts as an agent and he had ewxwicws orders from the petitioners -2- in W.P.nos. 1865 and 1866 of 2007 and the accused in turn had entrusted the job to the complainant/petitioner in W.P.No. 1423/07. According to the accused, the payment which was to be made to the complainant under the cheques in question by the accused is in fact paid by the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 1865 and 1866 of 2007 and thus the said payments made by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.1865 an 1866 of 2007 would be reflected from the relevant documents. During the course of cross examination of the complainant, a notice to produce the documents was served but despite the notice to produce the documents, the same were not produced. Hence the accused moved two applications, one under section 91 of Cr.P.C. and the other under section 254(2) of Cr.P.C. Both the applications were rejected by the trial court. Under the said two applications as many as production of 18 documents were asked for. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the applications passed by the Magistrate, the accused preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions judge being of the view that some of the documents asked for by the accused have a material bearing on decision of the question involved, hence it directed summons to the petitioners in these petitions and they are directed to produce the bank statements from September 2002 to 13-12-2002, and balance-sheet -3- from April 2002 to 13-12-2002 and original ledger from April 2002 to 13-12-2002. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order passed by the Magistrate refusing to issue summons for production of documents and witness summons is an interlocutory order and hence revision would not be maintainable before the Sessions Judge. The accused has a right to lead defence evidence. For effective exercise of the said right the accused is entitled to have the relevant documents produced, from the witnesses and to summon the witesses as well. Rejecting the said applications moved under sections 91 and 254(2) of Cr.P.C. goes to affect the accused prejudically. The said orders cannot be termed as interlocutory orders and hence revision is maintainable. 3. Perused the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The said order goes to direct production of the documents with a view to enable the accused to effectively lead evidence with a view to rebut the presumption and thus no interference with the same is called for. In the result, there being no merit in the writ petitions, the same are rejected. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the -4- petitioners submit that the complaint is pending since the year 2003 and hence seeks expeditious disposal of the complaints. The learned counsel for the accused does hot have any objection for expedited hearing of the complaints. In the result, I direct the trial court to proceed to decide the complaints as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. ...