: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2007 Shri Mahadeo Ramchandra Deshmukh & Ors. ...Petitioners. V/s. Pandurang Engineering & Construction & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri S.S.Shah, adv. for the Petitioners. Shri V.S.Talkute, adv. for the Respondent No.1. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 24th April, 2007. DATE : 24th April, 2007. DATE : 24th April, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Shah the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Talkute the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. To state in brief, the respondent no.1 is the complainant and the petitioners are the original accused nos.1 to 3. The complaint was filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was also cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons. It appears that in view of certain questions put to the complainant during cross-examination, the complainant felt it necessary to produce certain documents before the Court and, therefore, he filed certain documents alongwith affidavit. The production was opposed by the accused on the ground that : 2 : examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination is over and this was only an attempt to fill lacuna in the evidence. On the other hand, it was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that even before the cross-examination was over, application was made for production of documents and permission was sought for further examination-in-chief but that request was turned down on the ground that cross-examination was already in progress and at that stage the complainant could not be allowed to start re-examination. The learned trial Court had noted that the re-examination was possible only after the cross-examination was over and that too with the permission of the Court. In view of this after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the application Exhibit 136 whereby documents were sought to be produced before the Court by giving detailed reasons. The learned Magistrate noted that documents purported to bear signatures of the accused and they pertained to certain financial transactions between the petitioner and the respondents and, therefore, documents are necessary for the trial and for the proper decision in the matter. The learned Magistrate infact noted that if accused feel it necessary, they may be allowed to cross-examine the complainant in respect of the said documents. : 3 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by allowing the said application, the learned Magistrate has already admitted the said documents in evidence without any proof of those documents or without any cross-examination. After going through the impugned order, I find that this contention is not correct. The learned Magistrate made certain observations only to give reasons for production of documents, which does not mean that documents are already admitted in evidence. Such production is allowed under Section 254 of the Cr.P.C. Production of documents is one thing and proving the same is different. If the production is allowed, the complainant will have to lead evidence to prove those documents and naturally, the accused will also get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant in respect of those documents, unless, ofcourse, the documents are admitted by the accused in response to the notice, which may be issued by the complainant under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 4. In the result, petition stands dismissed summarily. : 4 : (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.)