1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1420 OF 2010 Pravin Kashinath Kanvinde ..... Applicant. V/s Subhash M. Mohite & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. P.G. Karande, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. Mr. J.D. Khairnar with Mr. Ramesh Siroya for respondent no. 1. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. Applicant is the original complainant. He has filed this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 22/12/2009 on the application filed by respondent No.1 in his complaint filed under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 3. It is the case of the applicant that he had given hand loan of Rs 1,00,000/- by cash on 10/03/2006 to respondent No.1 who had, thereafter, issued a cheque dated 20/09/2006 for discharging the said liability. When the cheque was deposited by the complainant, it was dishonoured and after the statutory notice was sent to him, present complaint has been filed. Respondent No.1, initially, had filed an application under section 91 read with section 254(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for production of documents mentioned in the application. The said application, however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 16/08/2007. This order was challenged by filing Writ Petition in this Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 10/09/2007 and the order passed by the Magistrate was confirmed. 4. Thereafter, second application was filed by respondent No.1 for production of documents viz xerox copies of complainant’s (i) Pan Card, (ii) cash book and profit and loss account, (iii) balance sheet for financial year 2005-06 and (iv) income tax returns for the year 2005-2006. The learned Magistrate, however, partly allowed the said application directing the complainant to produce xerox copy of the Pan Card. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present application. 5. It is firstly submitted that after the first application which was filed by the accused was rejected by the learned 3 Magistrate and which order was confirmed by this Court, the learned Magistrate could not have entertained the said second application filed by the accused. Secondly, it is submitted that the documents in question are public documents and it was the duty of the accused to rebut the presumption which is raised under the Act and, therefore, the learned Magistrate erred in passing the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 – accused submitted that the case of the complainant is that he had given hand loan and for the purpose of disproving this fact, it is necessary to rebut the presumption and, therefore, complainant has been asked to produce a copy of the Pan Card to show that this amount was not mentioned in the income tax return. He submitted summons was issued to the Income Tax Officer for examining him as defence witness. He submitted that it is necessary to lead evidence to disprove the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the respondent No.1 at length, in my view, the learned Magistrate has clearly committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record by directing the complainant to produce a xerox copy of the Pan Card. The first application of respondent No.1 was rejected by the learned Magistrate and this order was confirmed by this Court by its order dated 10/09/20007. Secondly, the 4 documents demanded are public documents and the respondent No.1 could have filed an application and got those documents produced. Instead of that, second application has been filed by the accused. It is obvious that the only intention of the accused is to protract the proceedings and, therefore, this second application appears to have been filed. The learned Magistrate, therefore, clearly erred in entertaining the said second application. 8. Hence the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is set aside. Trial is expedited. Trial Court shall decide the case expeditiously and, in any case, within six months. 9. Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5