1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.714 of 2009 (Jaganmal Pamandas Chandwani v. Rajeev Kamalkishor Biyani and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for NA 1. APP for NA 2. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 3rd April, 2009 By this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original accused in a criminal case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act takes exception to various orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of exhibiting certain documents on 5-11-2008. On that day, the counsel for the accused as well as the accused were absent. The learned Magistrate was obviously not required to wait for the accused or his counsel to appear before the Court. It was their duty to appear when the matter was called. Therefore, no fault can be found in marking the documents as exhibits. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Peacock Industries Ltd., Udaipur and others v. Budhrani Finance Ltd., Bombay and 2 another, reported at 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 162, which was also referred to before the learned Magistrate. Direction (p) in para 45 of the judgment is very clear and the learned Magistrate would follow it. However, exhibition of documents does not make the documents a gospel truth. It would be open for the applicant to point out that the documents are not proved as required by law and, therefore, cannot be relied on, or that the documents, even if proved by examining their authors are unreliable or untrustworthy. This can be done by various modes which need not be enumerated here. The learned Magistrate would undoubtedly bear in mind that exhibition of documents is just marking them for identification and does not mean that ipso facto the documents prove their contents as true. In view of this, no interference is called for. All other orders, which are challenged, have their roots in the order dated 5-11-2008 and, therefore, are not required to be disturbed. The application is disposed of. Judge. Pdl.