((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2008 Prasannaraj S. Pandyaji Petitioner versus Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and another Respondents U.R.Mankapure for petitioner. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the complaint filed by the first respondent bank for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. An application at Exhibit-30 was made by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate pointing out that even according to the case of the first respondent, a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh was repaid by the petitioner against which an immovable property taken by the first respondent as a security was released by the first respondent by executing a release deed ((-2-)) which is duly registered. By the said application the petitioner prayed that the first respondent be directed to produce the original release deed. The second prayer made in the application was that the first respondent should be directed to produce the record to show that a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh has been credited by the first respondent to the loan amount of the petitioner. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate and the order of rejection has been confirmed in the revision application preferred by the petitioner. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the petition. The fact that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh against which the property was released by the first respondent by executing a registered document is not disputed by the first respondent. Infact, in the reply to the application filed by the petitioner, it was contended by the first respondent that the original deed of release is in the custody of the petitioner. In the said reply, the first respondent has specifically admitted that a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs was repaid by the petitioner. ((-3-)) 3. Hence, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application. If the petitioner is in possession of the original deed of release, he can always produce the same before the Trial Court by way of defence evidence. If the original deed of release is not with the applicant, he can produce a certified copy thereof. Apart from this, the learned Sessions Judge has observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the first respondent desires to conceal certain documents, the Court may not rely upon his evidence and accept the defence. 4. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)