* 1 * Appln.4445.2010 26.9.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4445 OF 2010 KSL & Industries Limited ....Applicant/Orig.Complainant V/S. Geekay Exim (I) Ltd & Ors. .....Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by. M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the applicant. None for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State-respondent no.4. CORAM :- K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. 26 September, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. Loss of original cheque no. 224302 issued by the respondent (accused) was sought to be proved in the on-going proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by leading secondary evidence. An application was moved giving reference to the aforesaid cheque. The learned Judge declined to entertain the prayer and hence the present application. 3. Having gone through the record, it is seen that pursuant to consent terms recorded in money decree, a set of several cheques were issued by the respondent (accused) in which the aforesaid cheque dated * 2 * Appln.4445.2010 26.9.2011 16th September, 2001 was also included. This is more precisely to be seen in the letter dated 18th July, 2007 of the respondent (accused). The bank memo which was in the original form indicated dishonour of cheque no.224302 dated 16th September, 2001. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge declining to allow secondary evidence, does not stand to reason and conformity to the legal position. The base for seeking permission to lead evidence was again demonstrated by an affidavit of Smt. Pramila Rebello (Secretary to Chairman and Managing Direction in the complainant-company). She has highlighted that she handed the cheque in question and had on the instructions given its photostat copies and the events of loss is also commented. This supporting evidence should have been considered. Rejection to lead secondary evidence was incorrect. Document is not a fiction. In the result, the application is allowed. The order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar in C.C. No. 731/S/2004 is set aside. The complainant is granted permission to lead secondary evidence as was sought. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J]