( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2009 Rajkumar s/o. Sudamrao Dhamdhere .. Petitioner Versus Sunuish s/i. Ghisulal Chordiya and anr. .. Respondents Shri P.N. Sonpetkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.G. Shah h/f. Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 01.02.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri P.N. Sonpetkar for the petitioner, Adv. Shri N.G. Shah h/f. Adv. Shri N.S. Ghanekar for respondent No.1 and A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent No.2/State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the ( 2 ) writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2007 decided on 16.10.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of dismissal of application Exh.44, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad on 14.02.2007 thereby rejecting the prayer for directing the complainant to produce certain documents. 4. The only reason given by the Revisional Court for production of document is that the witnesses of the complainant admitted that he could produce before the Court the documents in respect of payment made to Mr. Gilbille as well as the documents executed. I do not find any reason for calling the document or purpose for which the documents are called. The order passed by the Sessions Judge merely on such admission, is not proper and he ought to have examined whether the documents are relevant and if their production is necessary for decision of the case. ( 3 ) 5. In these circumstances and also considering the ratio in the case of Sethuraman V/s. Rajamanickam, 2009 Cr.L.J. 2247, that the revision is not tenable against such order on application for production of document, this writ petition must be allowed. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad dated 16.10.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2007 is hereby set aside. Present respondent No.1/accused is given liberty to make fresh application specifically stating which documents he wants including the period for which the accounts were settled. He may also state reason for necessity of calling such record for trial of the case and thereafter the application may be decided after hearing other side according to law. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/crwp1049.09