1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3657/2009 Applicants :- 1. M/s Gawande Bandhu, A Partnership Firm through its Partner Sanjay Dnyandeorao Gawande. 2. Dnyandeorao Sadashiorao Gawande Age – 73 years, Occ. Business & Agril. 3. Sanjay Dnyandeorao Gawande, Aged – 40 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Both Mahatha Colony, Akola. Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola. ...Versus... Respondent :- The Akola Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd. Akola, Through its Branch Manager A.P.M.C. Market Akola & its Main Branch old cotton Market Akola Tq. & Dist. Akola. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.A. Mohta, Adv. for applicants] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 18.01.2010 1. This criminal application is directed against the order dated 2.11.2009, below Exh.42 in S.C.C. No.329/2007, passed by the J.M.F.C., Akola. 2. In support of the application, learned Counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants/accused applied requesting the Court to direct the respondent – Bank to produce the 2 documents relating to loan in order to say that there was no mention about the cheques in question in those documents. According to him, though it is true that the application was made at the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of arguments, the power of the Court to recall a witness with such documents ought to have been exercised by the trial Court. 3. I have gone through the application (Exh.42) so also the impugned order. I find that the applicants stated in the examination of the accused that they did not want to examine any witness and thus closed their case, which was posted for arguments. That apart, looking at the reason for calling the documents and witness as mentioned in application (Exh.42), I find that it is not going to serve any purpose since the case of the applicants before me is that there is no mention about the cheques in all those documents. If it is the defence of the applicants that by way of security of loan the cheques were given, absence of mention about the cheques in the documents cannot help the applicants. Hence, no purpose would be served by allowing the application (Exh.42). In the result, I find no merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE SSW