- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.874 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.874 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.874 OF 2008 Rajendra Manohar Patil ...Petitioner vs. Jyoti Bapu Kenwade & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Sameer S. Tembekar for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State Mr.Shrishail Sakhare with Ms Nilambika Sakhare for the Respondent No.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 6,2008 : AUGUST 6,2008 : AUGUST 6,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the first Respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. During the course of recording of evidence on the side of first Respondent, a postal envelope containing notice allegedly sent to the petitioner by the Advocate for the first Respondent was opened before the Court. The petitioner made an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 contending that there is a forgery/fabrication in the office copy of the notice produced by the first Respondent along with the complaint as it appears that certain portion found in the office copy of the notice is different from the original notice which was in the postal envelope. Thus, the allegation in short is that the office copy of the notice produced by the - 2 - first Respondent is forged. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. An Appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the Appellate Court found that there was some difference in the text of the office copy of the notice and the notice found in the postal envelope. The submission is that certain additions were made in the office copy of the notice to secure an order of conviction. 2. In my view today it is premature to go into the merits of such allegations. The complaint is pending at the stage of recording of evidence. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application considering the stage at which the said application was made. The contentions of the petitioner based on aforesaid two documents can be certainly considered by the trial court when the complaint is finally decided. 3. Subject to what is stated above, no case is made out for interference at this stage. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE