1 ndm 25 appln.4726.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4726 OF 2009 M/s. Rasiklal Ratilal Trading Pvt Ltd. ... APPLICANT Vs. M/s. Fancy Corporation Ltd. and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. Prakash Naik for Applicant. Mr. Virendra Parekh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. More, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 29 th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 By way of present application, the Applicant challenges the order dated 29 th September, 2009 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai thereby rejecting the application filed by the present Applicant to produce three documents being Exhibit Nos. 54, 127 and 128. 3 It appears that, there are two cases pending between the parties with regard to different cheques, one is C.C. No. 674/S/2003 and the second is C.C. No. 676/s/2003. The Applicant has produced three 2 documents being Exhibit Nos. 54, 127 and 128 in C.C. No.676/s/2003 and they have been exhibited in the said case. However, since the said documents could not be produced in C.C. No.674/S/2003, he made an application below exhibit - 57 for production of three documents from the case being No.676/s/2003. However, the Application came to be rejected with liberty to the Applicant to apply for return of documents in Case No. 676/s/2003. Accordingly, the Applicant filed an application in Case No. 676/s/2003 for return of the documents. The said application was allowed and the aforesaid documents were permitted to be returned to the Applicant on the condition that the Applicant produces the certified copies of the said documents on record. Thereafter, an application came to be filed for production of the aforesaid three documents and marking them as exhibit in Case No.674/S/2003. The same is rejected on the ground that the application is filed at a belated stage. 4 The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that since the documents in question were on the record of another case, the same could not be produced in the present case and therefore, the ground on which the application is rejected i.e. delay is not maintainable in law. 5 The learned counsel for the Respondents on the contrary submits that the application has been filed at a belated stage. He further submits that as to whether the said documents are exhibited or not is also disputed and therefore, no case is made out for interference. 3 6 The facts in the present case are peculiar. According to the Applicant, the aforesaid documents are already exhibited in Case No. 676/s/2003 and as the said documents were on the record of case No. 676/s/2003, the same could not be produced in the present case. 7 I find that in the interest of justice and in the peculiar facts, the application of the present Applicant needs to be allowed. In any case, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents - accused as the accused would always be at liberty to contest the genuineness of the said documents when the complainant steps into witness box to prove these documents. Merely granting the permission to the complainant for examining himself and production of these documents would not amount to exhibiting of the said documents ipso facto in the present proceedings. 8 The impugned order dated 29 th September, 2009 is therefore, quashed and set aside. The application of the Applicant for recalling him for production of the aforesaid three documents only being Exhibit Nos. 54, 127 and 128 stand allowed. The question of exhibiting these documents is left open to be decided by the learned trial Court after the examination of the complainant and hearing the objection of the accused, if any. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]