1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2009 M/s.S V M Engineers P Ltd. : Petitioner V/s. Royal Palms India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.P.D. Prasad Rao for the petitioner. Mr.M.K.Dubey with Mr.Mohan Dharmraj for respondent nos.1 to 4. Ms M.H. Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court refusing to recall the petitioner-complainant as a witness. The petitioner- complainant states that in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is necessary to re-examine himself because certain documents have not been properly exhibited and, therefore, it would not be possible to read them in evidence. The second reason was that certain documents have been obtained under the Right to Information Act which throw light on the subject and particularly the fraud was allegedly played by the accused and, therefore, re-examination is necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in addition, there are certain 2 documents which are recently marked as articles and they would create a confusion. Therefore, re-examination is necessary. 2. Having heard the matter, it appears that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application. The trial Court has observed that all the documents in question have been marked as exhibits either singly or collectively and can all be read in evidence. Further, it does not appear from the order of the trial Court that certain documents have been only marked as articles. In any case, if there is some confusion as to whether the document has wrongly been marked as articles when it ought to have been marked as exhibits, it is not necessary for re- examining the complainant. As regards the question of documents under the R.T.I. Act, the trial Court has rightly observed that re-examination of the complainant is not necessary because the complainant is neither the author of the documents nor the signatory. Moreover, the trial Court has rightly observed that the law requires the trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act to be concluded without any unreasonable delay. 3. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. The trial be expedited. S.A. BOBDE, J.