1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2009 Siddique Khan Jamil Khan ...Petitioner vs. Narendra Kumar Uday Kitawat State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.Santosh Chari for the petitioner Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The first respondent filed his affidavit in lieu evidence. Before cross examination of the first respondent could commence, the petitioner accused filed an application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking a direction against the first respondent to produce the copies of the income tax returns of the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 as well as bank statements. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by filing a revision application before the Sessions Court. The revision application was allowed and 2 the application made by the petitioner was rejected. 2 After having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the first respondent, I find that the application made by the petitioner under section 91 of the said Code was premature. The said application could not have been filed before the cross examination of the first respondent was made by the petitioner. Interests of justice will be served by directing that the application made by the petitioner on 2nd April 2007 shall to be heard on merits after recording cross examination of the first respondent. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Application made by the petitioner under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 on 2 nd April 2009 will be considered afresh by the learned trial Judge after recording the cross examination of the first respondent. ii)It is clarified that orders dated 6 th September 2007 as well as 15 th January 2009 are inoperative in as much as the said application will have to be considered afresh on its own merits. iii)All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. JUDGE