IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION jmi CRIMINAL WRIT PETTIION NO.2982 OF 2011 1. Mr. Rohit Maneklal Sanghvi -- PETITIONERS V/s. 1. Dr. Pankaj Champaklal Gandhi 2. The State of Maharashtra -- RESPONDENTS Mr. Rohit Maneklal Sanghvi, Petitioner in Person present. Mr. Pankaj C. Gandhi, R.No.1 in person present Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER 2011 P.C. 1. Heard finally. 2. On 31st March, 1999, in on going proceeding U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the accused (respondent Dr. P.C. Gandhi) moved an application to summon Bank witness, consequently by order dated 3rd July, 1999 responsible officer of Indian Overseas Bank was summoned and he was examined including completion of his cross examination. 3. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application before the same Judge, in terms of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. recalling the same bank witness to produce certain record relating to the account of the applicant maintained by the bank from the commencement of account, till the date of the application dated 28th June, 2011. The learned Judge allowed said application and consequently present proceeding at the instance of original complainant. 4. Having gone through the earlier application and evidence of Bank witness, seeking again to call bank witness was and is illusory. The benefit, the respondent wants to take of the policy of Reserve Bank of India under the banner of 'Know Your Client' norms (in short K.Y.C.) will not advance the contentions as raised by the accused/Respondent. That apart the accused/respondent has no business to look into the subsequent transactions and funds the maintenance of the account of the complainant's Firm post the transaction involved i.e. after 12th March, 1996. 5. During the course of submission though the complainant has stated, he has no objection if the bank officer produces the record till 12th March, 1996. However, considering the evidence already recorded, I do not see such concession to be entertained. 6. The respondent says, he wants to know Permanent Account Number of the Partnership Firm belonging to the complainant. 7. Care can be taken to this effect, however, I do not see any merit in the application moved by the accused applicant before learned Judge, who allowed said application, on 22nd September, 2011 consequently the application moved before learned Metropolitan Magistrate is rejected. However, the applicant (complainant) within a week from today shall furnish photostate copy of PAN Card of Partnership Firm to the accused /Respondent or in the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 21st Court, Bandra in the Case Nos.95/SS/2006 or 96/SS/2006. The Petitions disposed of. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. )