bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 696 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 696 OF 2008 Swarooprao B. Patil ... Petitioner v/s Shree Warna Co-op. Bank Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.B.Vagyani for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Borkar for the respondent No.1. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2008 10TH APRIL, 2008 10TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Islampur, dated 17.3.2008 whereby permission has been granted to the prosecution to recall its witness for a just decision in the matter. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner. An application has been filed by it to place on record certain documents which had not been filed at the initial stage. The prosecution witnesses have been examined. The statements of the accused have also been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the arguments of the accused were completed. At the stage of arguments on behalf of the 2 prosecution, an application was filed on 14.3.2008 seeking permission under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the witness and to produce the documents. 3. The learned Magistrate has allowed the application after considering the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Rajendra Prasad v/s Narcotic Cell, reported in Rajendra Prasad v/s Narcotic Cell, reported in Rajendra Prasad v/s Narcotic Cell, reported in A.I.R. A.I.R. A.I.R. 1999 SC 2292. 1999 SC 2292. 1999 SC 2292. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this judgment would only apply to recall of a witness for adducing evidence and not for recalling a witness in order to produce certain documents which were not placed on record at the initial stage. Admittedly, photo copies of the documents have been filed earlier and the respondent wants to now place on record the originals of those documents. In my view, the submission on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted especially in view of the judgments in the cases of (i) Mohanlal Shamji Mohanlal Shamji Mohanlal Shamji Soni Soni Soni v/s Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC v/s Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC v/s Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC 1346, 1346, 1346, (ii) Rajendra Prasad (supra) and (ii) Rajendra Prasad (supra) and (ii) Rajendra Prasad (supra) and (iii) P. P. P. Chhaganlal Chhaganlal Chhaganlal Daga v/s M.Sanjay Shaw, reported in (2003) 11 Daga v/s M.Sanjay Shaw, reported in (2003) 11 Daga v/s M.Sanjay Shaw, reported in (2003) 11 SCC SCC SCC 486. 486. 486. The learned Magistrate has exercised his powers and passed the impugned order. In my view, this order cannot be termed as erroneous and does not call 3 for interference from this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed.