( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2009 Annarao s/o. Pandurang Gambhire .. Petitioner Versus Navalkishor s/o. Bhagwandas Sarda .. Respondent Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P. Gude, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Mukul Kulkarni for the petitioner and Adv. Shri M.P. Gude for sole respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties this writ petition is taken up for final hearing immediately. 3. This writ petition presents small legal point. Present petitioner is accused person in a criminal complaint ( 2 ) filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is registered as S.T.C.C. No. 3065 of 2006. Application Exh.64 (Exh. “D”) along with the petition was filed by the present petitioner for issuing summons to brother of present respondent for producing sale-deed dated 07.05.1999. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court refused to issue witness summons under Section 130 of the Evidence Act. Section 130 of the Evidence Act is as follows:- “S. 130. No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.“ 4. It is true that no witness who is not party to the suit shall be compelled to produce his title to any property or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking production of such documents. In this case, since the original sale-deed is in ( 3 ) possession of Nandkishor, brother of present respondent and since Court is not inclined to allow application Exh. 64, present petitioner would be entitled to lead secondary evidence regarding said sale-deed. 5. With the above observations the writ petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp967.09