1 WP : 2953/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2953 OF 2010 Pravin Dharma Patel .... Petitioner Vs. M/s Indian Seamless Financial .... Respondents Services Ltd. & Anrs. Mr. Raju Yamgar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th February, 2011 P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order of the trial Court rejecting his application for direction to respondent no.1 to produce documents. The petitioner is the accused in the proceedings filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent no.1. The documents desired to be produced by the petitioner are Hire Purchase Agreements No.1648 and 1649 and the statement of accounts relating to Hire Purchase Agreement No.1649. Mr. Yamgar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is concerned with only one transaction of loan, which is reflected in Hire Purchase Agreement No.1649 for purchase of his tractor. He submits that the witness for respondent no.1, however, in his evidence referred to Hire Purchase Agreement No.1648 also as the agreement executed with the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, 2 WP : 2953/2010 both these documents are required to be produced in order to establish that the petitioner is not concerned with Hire Purchase Agreement No.1648. According to the petitioner, the Hire Purchase Agreement No.1648 relates to his uncle. Perusal of the cross-examination of the witness of respondent no.1 shows that he has, in terms, admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner has entered into only one Hire Purchase Agreement with his Company in respect of the tractor i.e. Hire Purchase Agreement No.1649, for which EMI fixed was Rs.12,632/- per month with the duration of agreement as three years. In view of this admission, it is obvious that there is no need for production of the two Hire Purchase Agreements. The other document required by the petitioner is of the statement of accounts in respect of his loan transaction. The witness for respondent no.1 has admitted that respondent no.1 does maintain the statement of accounts in respect of all the transactions of loan by it. Respondent No.1, however, has chosen not to produce the document before the Court. In that circumstance, the court is bound to draw adverse inference against respondent no.1 under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the evidence, which could be but is not produced, would if produced be unfavourable to respondent no.1. Since the consequence for withholding of the document is provided for in the Evidence Act, the application filed by the petitioner was an unnecessary application. The trial Court has rightly rejected it. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J)