:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2515 OF 2008 Harinarayan G. Bajaj ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Zal T. Andhyarujina with Mr. Vivek Sharma for applicant. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda with Mr. G.B. Kedia for respondent nos.2 & 3. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 19, 2008. Date : November 19, 2008. Date : November 19, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant - original complainant, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 - original accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant filed a criminal complaint bearing Complaint No. 6/S/99, which was pending before the learned Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. Thereafter the said case came to be :2: transferred to the Court of learned Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai and it was re-numbered as 125/SW/05. On all the dates, during a period of seven years, the complainant used to carry documents relating to the case with him under the belief that the learned Advocate for the accused will ask certain questions pertaining to those documents and he would be required to produce those documents in court. The age of the complainant is above 65 years and he is being cross-examined for the last seven years. As the documents were bulky and he was required to bring them on every occasion, the complainant requested the court to take the said documents on record. The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that he had no objection if those documents were taken on record and marked Article for the purpose of identification. Hence, by order dated 13/2/2007 the learned Magistrate directed to take the said documents on the record and the documents were marked as Article-14 collectively for the purpose of identification. 3. Thereafter, the complainant preferred an application praying that the court either to take the :3: documents on record of the file of the present proceedings or in the alternative allow the complainant to get the said documents in this court only when the same are further required. The said application was opposed by the learned advocate for the accused and he submitted that when this court was taking those documents on record and marking it Article-14, the xerox copies of the same may be supplied to him. However, by order dated 14/2/2007 the learned Magistrate did not give the xerox copies of the said documents to the accused and liberty was given to the complainant to challenge the order before the Sessions Court. 4. Thereafter the learned advocate for the accused preferred an application dated 22/2/2007 for supply of certified copies of the said documents which were marked as Article-14 collectively. However, during the course of argument, the learned advocate for the accused submitted that he is ready to proceed with the trial if the seal of the bundle containing documents is opened. He further submitted that he would not insist for the copies of those documents as :4: the said issue is pending before the Sessions Court. These facts are reflected in the order dated 3/4/2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant preferred revision application before the Sessions Court and the same was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge observing that it was not maintainable. 5. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the respondents-accused that copies of the documents marked as Article-14 collectively be supplied to the accused and for grant of certified copies of the documents to the accused. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 30/6/2008 observed that pursuant to the order dated 14/2/2008 copies of the documents be given to the accused. Hence, this application. 6. At this stage Mr. Ponda the learned advocate for the respondents-accused, on instructions, states that respondents are not pressing for the copies of the documents which are marked Article-14 collectively or certified copies of the said documents at this :5: stage and he would insist on the same only if the said documents are proved and thereafter exhibited. It is seen that the documents were only taken into custody by the court in view of the prayer of the complainant. The said documents have not been proved. The said documents have not been exhibited. Thus until the said documents are proved and exhibited, copies cannot be given to the opposite party. 7. Looking to the fact that the matter is of the year 1999 and the complainant is under cross-examination for the last seven years, the trial of the said case be disposed of as far as possible by 15th October, 2009. The learned Advocate for the complainant makes a statement that besides the complainant, he will examine at the most three more witnesses. The said statement is accepted. Hence the order dated 30/6/2008 directing the complainant to give to accused copies of the documents, which are at Article 14-collectively, is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that if the complainant requires any of the original documents at Article -14 collectively for any reason, it would be open to him to apply to the :6: trial court for the same. 8. Application is disposed of accordingly. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)