1 499.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 499 OF 2011 Sumeet Prakash Gavali and another. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. V.S.Kotwal i/b. M.S.Mohite for the applicants. S.S.Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 25th July 2011. P.C. : This application arises out of interlocutory order. The same can be disposed of in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 1158 and, particularly, paragraph-13 thereof which reads as under: “13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates 2 499.11-apl to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)” 2. The application is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the learned trial Judge to decide the question regarding admissibility of the memory card containing recorded conversation at the stage of conclusion of the trial after hearing rival submissions in respect thereof. 3. In view of pendency of present petition, period to decide trial is extended by further three months from today. 4. Needless to mention that the interim relief granted shall stand vacated. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)