1 (Cri WP 3167 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3167 OF 2010 Nutherm Insulations Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Mr.H.E. Palwe for Petitioners Mr.P.S. Hingorani-APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar. By the said order, the application filed by the Complainant for taking the documents on record was partly allowed. 2. The Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The process was issued and the Complainant was being the 2 (Cri WP 3167 of 2010) cross examined by the Petitioners-Accused. During the cross examination, the following question was asked by the advocate for the Petitioners-Accused. “Q. : As to whether you are able to show that after credit of cheque amount as to whether you raised invoices against the accused and dispatch the materials? Ans: Witness stated that after verification of account he can give answer. In view of this, the cross examination was defeated. Thereafter, the Complainant filed an application permitting him to bring on record a document viz. a letter dated 10.5.2007 written by the Petitioners to the Complainant. This application was partly allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the learned Judge erred in taking on record a document produced by the Complainant though the said document was not 3 (Cri WP 3167 of 2010) referred by the Petitioners -Accused during the course of cross examination. 4. It is not possible to accept this submission. The specific question which was asked by the Petitioner’s Counsel was whether the complainant could show whether he had raised the invoices against the accused and dispatch the materials and consequently while transferring the said question, the Complainant has produced the said document. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)