1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.218 OF 2009 Shrikant Shantaram Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Dattatraya Tukaram Karekar .. Respondent Mr.Shashikant Mande a/w Mr.Mahendra Agawekar i/by Mr.Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. Ms.S.V.Gajare, A.P.P for the State. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 16th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said complaint an affidavit in lieu of evidence was filed by the complainant. After filing of the said affidavit an application was made by the petitioner invoking section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for directing the 1 st respondent complainant to produce certain documents set out in the said application. By order dated 09 th February 2007, the said application was disposed of by the learned Magistrate directing the 1 st respondent to produce the documents 2 which were available with the 1 st respondent. A revision application preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that all the documents which are set out in the application made by the petitioner have not been produced by the 1 st respondent. He submitted that the documents set out in the application go to the root of the matter. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the first respondent to produce all the documents set out in the application. 3. I have considered the submissions. The petitioner has not yet cross-examined the witness of the complainant. As of today there is no material on record to show that the documents which are sought by the petitioner are in the custody of the complainant. The complainant has produced documents which according to him were in his custody. Whether the complainant is in possession of the other documents and whether he can be compelled to produce those documents are the questions which 3 cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore, considering the stage at which the complaint is pending, no fault can be found with the impugned order. After cross-examining the witnesses examined by the complainant, it will be always open for the petitioner to make a fresh application seeking production of the documents from the complaint. If such application is made, it is bound to be decided in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated above, Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)