1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 4545 OF 2008 (PANDURANG CHANDOL WANKHEDE VS. SITARAM TOTARAM GHATE.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri L.A.Mohta, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 23, 2009. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taking exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, below Exh.46 refusing to exhibit panchnama in respect of which P.W. 3 Narayan had been examined before the Court. Though Narayan turned hostile, in course of his cross-examination, on behalf of the complainant, he did state that it was true to say that police read over the panchnama to him and thereafter he signed, because the contents therein were true and correct. Since the panchnama was not exhibited the complainant made an application for exhibiting the same and the learned trial Magistrate came to reject the application, holding that the witness had denied that the panchnama was prepared in his presence and that he stated that he was called after completion of the panchnama. 2 2. Exhibiting a document is only meant to assign it identification tag. Whether the document can be relied on or not is a matter of realm of appreciation of evidence. It was not necessary for the Magistrate to go into that question whether the panchnama could be relied or not in view of the evidence of the witness. All this can be argued by the complainant while addressing the learned Magistrate at the end of the trial. The learned Magistrate would undoubtedly bear in mind the object of exhibiting of the documents and distinction in admissibility of the evidence, whereby a document is marked as exhibit, once the witness admits signature thereon, and the probative value of that document based on appreciation of evidence in the case. 3. With these observations the application is disposed of. JUDGE RR.