( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 845 OF 2009 Mahipalgir Venkatgir Giri PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.R. Kale, advocate holding for Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is original accused involved in a criminal case bearing S.T.C. No. 176/2005 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent (complainant) gave his address as “R/o Goswami Galli, Basav-Kalyan (Dist. Bidar in State of Karnataka”. According to him, he is inhabitant of Jalna. The question before the learned ( 2 ) Judicial Magistrate was regarding due service of the demand notice on the given address. The respondent (complainant) produced copy of the voters’ list in order to buttress his contention in respect of the proper address of the petitioner. He also adduced evidence of PW2 Shri Basavbhanu who translated the entries in the voters’ list from Kannada script into Marathi script. The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the documents to be read in evidence vide Exh-109 and Exh-110. The said order dated 16-07-2009 is being challenged by the petitioner (accused). 3. Considering the grounds put forth in the petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has agitated disputed questions of fact. If he claims to be the inhabitant of Jalna, then he is at liberty to adduce the evidence in rebuttal. The copy of the voters’ list could be admitted in evidence in as much as it is a public document. The learned advocate would submit that the copy is not duly authenticated one. He can obtain authenticated copy by exercising the right available under the Right to Information Act. He may produce such ( 3 ) copy before the learned Magistrate, in rebuttal, if he wants to demonstrate that the copy relied upon by the respondent No.2 (complainant) is not proper and valid one. Considering the nature of controversy raised in the petition and the fact that the petition is based on disputed questions of fact, the same is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp845-09