1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2009. Vasant S/o Laxmikantrao Palshikar ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Barlota, advocate holding for Mr.S.K.Barlota, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No.333/2008 and that of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in proceedings of Summary Case No. 2 8238/2004. 3. The petitioner is original accused against whom the Respondent filed Criminal proceedings for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent alleged that the original cheque issued by the petitioner was seized by the Income-tax Department during course of the raid which was conducted and, therefore, he was unable to file the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate. He filed only a xerox copy of the said cheque. The learned Magistrate issued process and the trial was being proceeded with. The Respondent subsequently submitted an application to call for the record from the Income-tax office in order to prove the original cheque. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed calling of the documents dated 15.9.2008 from the Income-tax Department. The order was challenged by filing Revision No.333/2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the said order holding that the order was of interlocutory nature. The calling of record from the Income- tax Department can not be regarded as arbitrary 3 action on part of the learned Judicial Magistrate. In view of "Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam" (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 153, the Revision was not maintainable. The discretionary order of the learned Magistrate can not be interfered with. The Criminal proceedings are already protracted for a long time. No more delay is warranted on account of technical pleas as taken in the present matter. The petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp9409