SSM 1 907.appw.530.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2773 OF 2008 WITH APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2773 OF 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents ____________ Ms. Anjali Awasthi for Applicant. Shri. J. P. Yagnik, APP for State. Shri. Sandeep K. Shinde for Respondent No. 9-Registry of High Court. CORAM: A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 7 TH APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard rival submissions for some time on this Application No. 530 of 2010 preferred by the original Complainant-Respondent in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2008. 2. Application No. 530 of 2010 is preferred by original SSM 2 907.appw.530.10 Complainant for directions to registry of this Court to supply the present Applicant the copy of the Criminal Writ Petition NO. 2773 of 2008 which was placed before the Vacation Judge (V. R. Kingaonkar, J) on 28 th December, 2008. It is further submitted during the arguments by learned Counsel Ms. Anjali Awasthi for the present Applicant-original Complainant that what is served on the present Applicant is some other copy and not containing the same material as presumably produced before this Court during Winter Vacation on 28 th December, 2008. Apparently, this apprehension was gathered by the present Applicant after obtaining the copy of the first order of the Winter Vacation Court dated 28 th December, 2008. Last sentence which is typed written on the said order at the internal page no. 3 mentions as office note to the following effect: 'Amendment carried out as per Court's order' 28/12/2008 Sd/- 31/12/2008 SSM 3 907.appw.530.10 By pointing out this addition by way of office note incorporated in certified copy given by the office of the first order passed on 28 th December, 2008 by the Vacation Court, it is submitted that the Petitioner in the Writ Petition i.e. the State of Maharashtra and other Police Officials are purposefully withholding the original Writ Petition and its contains from the original Complainant- present Applicant. 3. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the State drew attention of this Court to the office note prepared on 26 th April, 2010 concerning present matter. After going through the contents of said office note and after hearing the rival submissions and also after perusal of record and proceeding of the present matter which is at hand, it transpires that what is the initial amendment sought to be done was something like changing the Writ Petition typed on the ledger papers to the Writ Petition typed on the white papers in view of the usual practice of accepting any Application and Writ Petition of Government Officials or State SSM 4 907.appw.530.10 on white papers instead of ledger papers. On inspecting the record which is available with the Court now, the original ledger papers typed Writ Petition is also found placed on record alongwith the Writ Petition typed on white papers. In fact, it appears that apart from such change of papers on which the Writ Petition was typed, there is no any other amendment done and which is fortified by the report of the office which specifically mentions that there is only one Petition which was placed before the Court. Infact, the same Petition was typed on ledger papers and subsequently typed on white papers. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court there is nothing to direct the registry to again serve the copy of the Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2008 as repeatedly the copy of the Writ Petition which was subsequently typed on white papers has already been served on the present Applicant-original Complainant alongwith annexures. In the result present Criminal Application No. 530 of 2010 stand disposed off. (A. R. JOSHI J.)