1 appw3625.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3625 OF 2010 Sultan Shoukatali Mansoori. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Mr. M.K.Kocharekar i/b. Prakash Vare, advocate for applicant. Ms. Archana Khan, advocate for intervener. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- NOVEMBER 24, 2010. P.C. 1. By this application, it is prayed that the letter issued by the D.C.B.C.I.D. Branch dated 25th November, 2009 and 10th December, 2009 calling upon the applicant to produce original documents in connection with the MECR No.1 of 2006 be quashed and set aside. This relief is founded on the assertion that the applicant cannot be compelled to produce original documents in the wake of allegation that he is responsible for forging the said documents. This argument does not commend to us. It would be a different matter if he is not in possession of the original documents, as such. If the applicant, who is incidentally accused in the case, is obliged to produce the original documents or 2 appw3625.10 such other documents, as would be called upon during the investigation. That obligation flows from the provisions, such as 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the applicant is called upon to produce original documents and he does not do so inspite of possession thereof, then it is open to the investigating Officer to resort to other measures provided by the Code. After production of the original documents, the Investigating Officer would be free to send the same for expert’s opinion as to whether the document is forged or otherwise and thereafter, proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 2. We are in agreement with the argument of the Counsel for the complainant that the tenor of the application filed before this court goes to show that the applicant admits possession of the original documents with him. Counsel for the Applicant however, wanted us to rely on annexure to the application to contend that he has made it clear in the past that he does not possess the original documents. Notably, no such assertion on affidavit is made, which would persuade us to accept that plea. Further, we fail to understand as to how this plea can lie in the mouth of the applicant, who has already given assurance to the court in the anticipatory bail proceedings where he undertook to produce the relevant documents and cooperate during the investigation. In the circumstances, this application is ill-advised. The same is rejected. 3 appw3625.10 3. In view of disposal of the Criminal Application, needless to observe that the interim order, if any, stands vacated and parties are free to proceed in accordance with law. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)