- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.225 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.225 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.225 OF 2007 Mrs.Kiran Hardeep Chatrath ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & others ...Respondents Mr.Rishi Bhuta for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State Mr.E.R.Naik and Ms Sujata Bazar for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a private complaint lodged by the second Respondent. The second Respondent made an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of certain original documents which were allegedly stolen from the briefcase of the Advocate representing the second Respondent. Relying upon the certificate regarding filing of the complaint, the learned trial Judge allowed the second respondent to lead secondary evidence. The said order has been confirmed in revision. 2. The submission of the Advocate for the petitioner is that all originals of which the secondary evidence is sought to be produced were never referred to in the list of the documents filed with the complaint. He submitted that whether the said originals were available with the second respondent is an - 2 - aspect which is required to be proved by the second Respondent and in absence of proof, permission to lead secondary evidence could not have been granted. 3. I have considered the submissions. Even if permission has been granted to lead secondary evidence, the second respondent will have to adduce evidence to show that copies of alleged originals which are sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence are the true copies of the originals and that the original documents were in existence. 4. The petitioner has invoked powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The said powers are to be used sparingly and in very rare cases. It is not possible to interfere with the impugned order in this petition. 5. Subject to what is stated above, petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE