..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2008 Shri Shivaji Dashrath Galande. ..Petitioner. Versus Shri Uttam Laxman Pawar and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Pradeep Gole, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Bansode, Adv. for respondent No.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 14th October, 2008. DATED : 14th October, 2008. DATED : 14th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question was for Rs.90,000/-. The case of the accused is that he was Chairman of the Sanstha. A resolution was passed by the said society that on all cheques the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary were necessary, hence the accused asked for ..(2).. production of the said resolution in his application i.e. Exh.22. The case of the petitioner is that on the cheque in question there was only one signature. Hence he sought production of the said resolution under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned Magistrate disposed of the said application by passing following order : "Application is not maintainable at this stage. Accused will get an opportunity to lead his evidence in defence at appropriate stage. Hence application is filed." 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that the accused is entitled to apply under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of any document on which he wants to place reliance at any stage of the trial. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mancherji Mancherji Mancherji Pallonji Contractor and others v. Dinbai Nusserwanji Pallonji Contractor and others v. Dinbai Nusserwanji Pallonji Contractor and others v. Dinbai Nusserwanji Goawalla and another Goawalla and another Goawalla and another reported in (28) A.I.R. 1941 (28) A.I.R. 1941 (28) A.I.R. 1941 Bombay 260 Bombay 260 Bombay 260; Muhamad Rahim v. Emperor (FB) Muhamad Rahim v. Emperor (FB) Muhamad Rahim v. Emperor (FB) reported in A.I.R. 1935 Sind 13 A.I.R. 1935 Sind 13 A.I.R. 1935 Sind 13; and K.V.Rama Krishna Reddy K.V.Rama Krishna Reddy K.V.Rama Krishna Reddy v. The State v. The State v. The State reported in 1975 Cri.L.J. 980 (Andhra 1975 Cri.L.J. 980 (Andhra 1975 Cri.L.J. 980 (Andhra Pradesh) Pradesh) Pradesh). There can be no quarrel with the ..(3).. preposition that the accused can prefer such an application at any stage of the trial. However, the exercise of the power to summon documents is purely in the discretion of the trial Court. Obviously, this discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Looking to the facts of the present case, the learned Magistrate has not rejected the application outright, but, he has only observed that it is not maintainable at "that" stage. The learned Magistrate further observed that the accused had an opportunity to lead his evidence in defence. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of the Magistrate suffers from any infirmity. It is always open to the accused to lead his evidence in defence at appropriate stage. Thereafter also, if he feels it is necessary, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of the document. On such application, if any, being preferred by the petitioner the trial Court shall dispose it of in accordance with law. 4. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)