1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5553 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5554 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5555 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5556 OF 2009 Mrigendra M. Jalan & Anr. ..Applicants versus M/s. Auro Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. A.H.H. Ponda i/b. Mr. U. S. Samudrala for Applicants. Mr. Ashok Bhatia for Respondent No. 1. Mr. K. V. Saste - APP for Respondent No. 2 - State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 20, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule in all matters, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present applications, the applicants takes exception to the Orders dated 12th October 2009 vide which the learned appellate court has allowed the applications of the respondent no. 1 – complainant and permitted to add verification clause to his affidavits of examination-in- chief. 2 3. The applicants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved thereby appeals have been preferred being appeal Nos. 231, 232, 233 and 234 all of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai. In the said appeals applications came to be filed by the respondent no. 1 herein stating therein that the verification of the applicants were not recorded inadvertently at the stage of a trial and therefore he should be granted liberty to add verification clause to the affidavits of his examination in chief. The same were allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant fairly concedes that he does not object to the addition of the verification clause to the affidavits. He however submits that in the interest of justice the applicants should have an opportunity to cross examine on the additional evidence of the respondent no. 1 - complainant that has been allowed. 5. The limited relief claimed by the applicants is genuine. If one party leads an additional evidence, the other party must have a right to cross examine on the aspect of the said additional evidence. 6. Rule is therefore partly allowed in all the matters by modifying the 3 Orders dated 12th October 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay to the extent that the application is allowed subject to the complainant offering himself for cross examination by the applicants – accused. Since application for additional evidence has been allowed at the appellate stage, cross examination of the complainant would be before the appellate court itself. 7. Needless to state that the additional evidence led by the complainant along with the cross-examination by the accused would be taken into consideration while deciding the appeals. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)