1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.112/2010 Dattatraya Wamanrao Bhange Petitioner V E R S U S Shri Saibaba Sugars Ltd., Shivni (BK) Through Its Managing Director. Respondent. ..... Shri S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 6TH AUGUST, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is original accused in a complaint filed by the respondent /original complainant, under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act bearing STCC No.685/2008, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa. The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and he has been cross examined by the advocate for 2 the accused. The complainant also examined two witnesses and they were also cross examined and complainant closed evidence by filing closure pursis Exh.60 on 13.1.2010. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after filing closure pursis of evidence and particularly when PW 2 and PW 3 left the court, advocate for the complainant made oral request to the learned court to exhibit the documents i.e. agreement and account extract on 13.1.2010. Objection was raised on behalf of the accused that said documents cannot be exhibited because documents were not shown to the witnesses when they were before the Court, and after filing evidence closure pursis this exercise could not be done and that too in absence of any application, to that effect is on record. However, learned court passed order below Exh.1, on the same day as “In view of the contents in the affidavit, agreement and account extract is exhibited.” Order impugned dated 13.1.2010 is produced at Exh. E, page 33. 4. On perusal of contents of the impugned order dated 13.1.2010, it appears that learned trial judge observed therein that agreement and account extract were referred in the affidavit of PW 2 3 and PW 3 respectively and therefore, in view of the contents in the affidavit, agreement and account extract were exhibited but the proof and evidentiary value of the agreement and account extract were kept open. It was also observed that if accused wanted to cross examine restricted to the extent of agreement and account extract, he was accordingly permitted to cross examine on that point only. 5. On the background of that order, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that as per liberty granted by learned judge, learned advocate for the accused has cross examined PW 2 and PW 3 both witnesses to the extent of said agreement and account extract. 6. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts, nothing survives in the present petition and therefore same stands disposed of. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/112.10