1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2010 Vinod Pandurang Nigudkar ...Petitioner vs. Dnyandeep Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Raigad & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Sandip Jinsiwale for the Petitioner. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State. 2 The petitioner is challenging order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad, in Criminal Revision Application No.21/2008. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the criminal revision application 2 and thereafter, allowed the application filed by the respondent in the trial court permitting him to file copy of the resolution authorising him to represent the company. 3 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was posted for arguments and the recording of evidence was over. He submitted that at this stage, the complainant could not be permitted to file additional document. He submitted that grave prejudice was caused to the accused since the stage of recording of evidence was already over. In support of the said submission, he relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Amit Kumar Jaiprakash Singh vs. Mahesh Mahadev Dabholkar & Ors., reported in 2008 ALL MR (Criminal) 1919. 4 In my view, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. A complaint was filed by the 3 complainant which is an artificial person. An objection was raised by the accused that the resolution authorising the complainant to represent the said artificial person was not produced. In view of this objection, an application was made before the Magistrate seeking permission of the court to produce the said resolution. This application was rejected. The Sessions Court, however, allowed the complainant to produce the said resolution on record. Prima facie, it appears that no order has been passed by the Sessions Court directing the learned Magistrate to accept the said document as part of the evidence. In my view, this question which is now raised by the petitioner can always be raised by him at the time of hearing of the criminal case. The learned Magistrate shall, if such question is raised, consider it, in accordance with law. 5 With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)