1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2011 M/s. Roofit Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Applicants. v/s. The State & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms Rohini Wagh ,adv. For the Applicants. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. Ms Pravina Kanani i/by Shri D.M.Galani, advs. For the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the criminal case no.4154/SS/2007 is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the accused persons never appeared before the trial Court and they sought permission to file even their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in writing. Therefore, questionnaire was supplied to them and on 4.12.2010 they submitted their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement in response to the question 23, accused denied to examine themselves on oath as witnesses and in response to question no.24, they denied to examine any defence witness. However, later on, they filed an 2 application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. for production of certain documents. Documents were not admitted by the applicant/complainant. In view of this on behalf of the accused persons, application was made by their advocate on 15.2.2011 to issue summons to the officers of Karnataka Bank and Vysya Bank to prove certain bank statements pertaining to the accounts of the accused, particularly certain entries in those statements. However, that application was rejected by the trial Court. From the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court mainly rejected the said application because trial has been prolonged because of the accused persons and also because the statements of the accused persons were recorded long back and they had clearly stated that they did not want to examine any defence witness and at the stage of arguments, they filed this application, only with intention to prolong the case. 2 There appears substance in the opinion of the trial Court that the accused persons were interested in prolonging the case and belated application was the result of the same. It is material to note that all these bank statements were available with the accused persons even during the recording of evidence of the complainant but the accused did not bother to produce those statement at the time of recording of 3 evidence of the complainant or during his cross-examination or even alongwith the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, to avoid any future complications and defence to the accused that they were not given due opportunity to prove certain accounts, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant opportunity to the applicant/accused. However, it will have to be subject to heavy cost. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside subject to paying cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/complainant within two weeks from this date. If the cost is deposited, the trial Court shall issue summons to the said witnesses from both the banks. In case, cost is not deposited, this application shall be deemed to have been rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)