1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS.446/2010 & 447/2010 Mr.Chandrakant Natwarlal Shah : Petitioner (Orig.Accused No.2) V/s. M/s.J.V.Gokal Finance & Investments Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.P.D. Desai for the petitioner. Ms P.P.Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.9.2009 by which application filed by the complainant under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. came to be allowed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on an earlier application, the prayer made by the petitioner for production of certain documents and proving the same has been rejected by the learned trial Court on 8.6.2009. 2 3. Perusal of the order dated 8.6.2009 would reveal that the learned Magistrate has found that unless an application under section 311 was allowed, the additional evidence could not be permitted to be produced on record. Vide the said order, liberty was also granted to file an application under section 311. 4. It appears that subsequently an application has been filed by the complainant under section 311 which is allowed. The reasons given by the learned trial Court while allowing this application is that documents which are sought to be brought on record are already referred to in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed by the complainant’s witness. It has also been found that not a single question has been asked by the accused in the cross-examination. 5. No perversity could be noticed in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference. Hence, rejected. B. R. GAVAI, J.