1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2010 Shri Ranjeet Shankrao Deshmukh ... Petitioner Versus Printmann Offset Private Limited & Anr. ... Respondents. ... Mr. Sushil Nimbkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, for the Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 9th March 2010 P.C. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,13th Court, Mumbai. 2. I have perused the order. I am not inclined to interfere with the order for the reasons mentioned hereafter. The petitioner is an accused and prayed for an adjournment on the ground that during the course of the cross-examination, the respondent had agreed to produce the memorandum and articles of the association of the company and a 2 copy of the civil suit filed by the company for recovery of money. The learned Magistrate granted the request subject to a condition that cross examination should be completed regarding all other points and matter was adjourned for only cross examination relating only to the two documents when produced. In view of proper procedure was followed by the learned Magistrate to avoid any delay in the trial which was for an offence punishable under section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate did not grant adjournment for entire cross examination but limited it to the two documents to be produced. 3. It is however clarified that necessary question relating to the said documents, questions incidental thereto be allowed to be put up to the witness. Learned Magistrate is requested to proceed with the trial expeditiously since trial is part-heard. With this observations, the Petition is disposed of. 4. Authenticated copy is allowed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)