((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2009 Shah Vadilal Jethalal Agro Equip Private Limited Petitioner versus Tata Steel Ltd. and another Respondents Vivek Patil i/by Paras Kuhad and Associates for petitioner. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. As far as prayer made for directing recording examination-in-chief of the witness of the first respondent is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concedes that as far as this Court is concerned, the law is settled and the said prayer cannot be acceded to. His second grievance is that alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness Mr.Shailendra, large number of documents have ((-2-)) been tendered on record by the first respondent and the said documents have been marked as exhibits without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objection to the admissibility and/or proof of the said documents in terms of judgement and order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.2633 of 2008 and other connected matters. 2. The learned counsel for the first respondent on instructions states that none of the documents produced by the first respondent alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief have been exhibited by the Trial Court. He states that the Trial Court will have to follow the procedure as laid down in Criminal Application No.2633 of 2008. 3. I have considered the submissions. Apart from the statement made by the counsel for the first respondent on instructions, even in the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has noted that the documents have not been exhibited. 4. It is obvious that the Trial Court is bound to follow the law laid down by this Court in ((-3-)) judgement and order dated 19th and 22nd September 2008 in Criminal Application No.2633 of 2008 and will allow the petitioner to raise objections, if any, as provided in the said decision. 5. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is not necessary to set aside the impugned order. 6. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of. In case the learned Trial Court does not follow the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, it will be open for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in that behalf. (A.S.OKA, J.)