1 wp48.11group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 48 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 61 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 49 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 62 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 50 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 63 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 51 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 64 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 52 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 65 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 53 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 66 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No. 54 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 67 of 2011 Sai Ganesh Co-operative Credit Society, Miraj ...Applicant v/s. Shri Vinayak Ramchandra Dhumal & anr. ...Respondents 2 wp48.11group.sxw Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 26th July, 2011 PC: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Inspite of being duly served with notice for final disposal, none appears for respondent no.2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18th August, 2010 in the complaint filed by the present petitioner against the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. The petitioner had filed various complaints against the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the said proceedings after the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on behalf of the Complainant was completed, an application came to be filed for examining one more witness on behalf of the petitioners Smt. Vaishali Subhash Bhosale who was the Manager. The said application is rejected on the ground that her name is not included in the list of witnesses. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 3 wp48.11group.sxw 6. In similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of P. Chhaganlal Daga vs. M. Sanjay Shaw (2003) 11 SCC 486 had set aside the order of the High Court which had interfered with the order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting the Complainant to produce the documents though at the fag end of the trial. It can be seen that in the said case after the completion of evidence, the matter was posted for Judgment. However, in the present case the Complainant’s evidence is itself not yet over and the defence is yet to open its evidence. 7. In that view of the matter, no prejudice would have been caused to the present respondent no.2 if the third witness on behalf of the Complainant was allowed to be examined. 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 9. In view of the order passed in Writ petitions, nothing survives in criminal applications, the same are disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)