1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2007 (GAJANAN GOPALRAO PUNDKAR Vs ASHOK VYANKATRAO PINJARKAR & OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2008. 1. The petitioner is accused before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In course of the arguments before the learned trial Magistrate, on 16th February, 2006, the complainant's counsel is alleged to have shown some chits, which, according to the applicant, would support his case that the transaction was money lending transaction. He, therefore, made an application to the trial Magistrate for issuance of summons to the complainant to produce those chits. This application was allowed and the complainant was served with summons to produce the chits. The complainant did not produce those chits. Therefore, the applicant sought warrant 2 under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for search of the premises of the complainant to secure those chits. The learned Magistrate allowed this application and directed warrant to be issued. The complainant challenged this order before the Court of Sessions at Akot which set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved thereby the applicant has filed this petition. 2. I have heard Shri Mohta for the applicant. 3. If certain documents in possession of the complainant, which would have helped the applicant to prove his case, were shown in the Court but not produced in spite of the efforts by the applicant, this fact would help the applicant rather than the complainant. Therefore, the applicant is not required to secure production of those documents which the trial Court had noted to have been with the complainant and are yet not produced. Since it is for the complainant to tender best evidence in his possession to prove the charge levelled against the applicant, the applicant need not have taken trouble 3 of approaching this Court by filing present petition. When his turn to tender defence evidence comes whatever evidence he can cobble up he should tender before the trial Magistrate. 4. The petition is misconceived, hence, it is dismissed. JUDGE RR.