IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2008 Pravin Viram Satra & anr.... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. A.P.Mundargi i/b Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, respondent no.2 stands deleted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. One Prasad Tukaram Lad filed a private complaint against the present petitioners and others for the alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(ii) of IPC. The trial court directed the investigation to be made and hence the investigating officer moved an application before the trial court for seizure of the documents referred to in the application dated 1-1-2008, under section 93(1) of Cr.P.C. The trial court by a cryptic unreasoned order, which reads thus: "Heard. I.O. issue search warrant as prayed". and directed seizure of the documents. It is this order which is challenged by filing the instant Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the first place contended that the impugned order being bereft of reasons is wholly unsustainable. In the second place, it it contended that no order under section 93 can be passed against the accused, and lastly it is submitted that in all fairness the petitioners are ready and willing to hand over all the original documents referred to, from serial no.1 to serial no.6 in the application dated 1-1-2008. It is also stated that the petitioner wants to co-operate with the investigation and thus would hand over the documents to the investigating officer, subject to the investigating officer acknowledging the receipt of the said documents. In relation to document No.7, it is stated that the original document dated 11-8-2005 is not in possession of the petitioners and the same is in possession of the Express Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The very perusal of the impugned order goes to reveal that the order is a non-speaking order and being a judicial order, the same cannot be sustained as the same is devoid of reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court delivered in W.P. No. 1511/07 dated 21-11-2007 wherein relying on Supreme Court judgment, it is held that no order under section 93 (1)(a) can be issued against the accused. For these reasons the impugned order dated 1-1-2008 needs to be quashed and set aside. As the petitioners are ready and willing to hand over the original documents from serial no.1 to serial no.6, as mentioned in the application moved by the investigating officer dated 1-1-2008, no order need to be passed in that regard. 5. In the result, on concession made available, I record that the petitioners do hand over the documents from serial no.1 to serial no.6 to the investigating officer who is present in the court and the investigating officer shall acknowledge the receipt of the said documents and hand it over to the petitioners. In so far as document at serial no.7 is concerned, the same is not in possession of the petitioners, and it shall be open for the investigating officer to obtain possession thereof in accordance with the law. Writ petition stands disposed of. ....