IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2008 SHRI. JOSE WILLIAM MENEZES ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. RICHARD J. RODRIGUES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Arjun F. Naik,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 15th January, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge whereby he set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and allowed production of documents by the accused. 2. The petitioner is a complainant and has filed a complaint case before the Magistrate under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence of the complainant is over. The Magistrate had recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused has examined himself as a witness. After the examination of the accused as witness, the accused moved an application for production of certified copy of deposition of the complainant in civil suit. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the accused for production of that document on record saying that it is made with the intention to delay the trial. The accused moved revision to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge found that the production should have been allowed and held that the accused was entitled to produce the said document and he allowed production of document. The complainant feels aggrieved by that order and prefers this petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner / complainant, submits that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, is patently wrong. He contends that the production of such document at late stage is concerned, was only with a view to delay the trial. In this regard, the provision of Section 243 of Criminal Procedure Code, needs to be looked into. Section 243 of Criminal Procedure Code, permits the accused to produce the document only after he enters his defence. The accused, therefore, could not have produced that document before the Court before he examined himself and entered his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in allowing the production of the document by the accused. The order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. The questions as to whether that document can be read into evidence, requires proof or not, can be decided by the Magistrate independently at the time of hearing the arguments on merits. 3. With these observations, the petition is dismissed in limine. 4. Stay stands vacated. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA