IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2008 Siddharth Bholanath Srivastava ...... ......Petitioner V/s Powerpack Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.Subhash Jha with Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Ms.Lakshimi Menon, Renu Singh, Mrs.Tejashree Rane and Mrs.Santosh Thakur i/by M/s.Law Global, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Kishor Bhatia, Adv. For the respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26/2/08 PC: A criminal complaint which is the subject matter of this petition is awaiting decision for last 12 years. The complaint has been filed in the year 1996. After evidence of the complainant is closed the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings mainly on the ground that it has come on record in evidence indicating that the complainant does not possess money lending licence and hence the very filing of the complaint is misconceived. As stated herein above the evidence of the complainant is over. After the accused/petitioner leads his evidence the trial Court would consider all the submissions based on the evidence that would be by then recorded. On the basis of recording partial evidence this Court cannot in writ jurisdiction appreciate that part of the evidence for the first time to determine 1 as to whether proceedings need to be continued further or need to be quashed at this stage. The present writ petition is to say the least intended to protract the trial. 2. An interlocutory passed by the trial Court also is challenged in the present writ petition and same is dated 16.2.08 which goes to reject the application moved by the present petitioners for sending the books of accounts to forensic laboratory. According to the present petitioners all the books of account for the period 1995-96 to 2005-06 are recently prepared and are tampered and hence an application was moved for sending the said account books with a view to have expert' s opinion on age of the ink, age of paper etc. The trial Court has found that the application is devoid of any merits and thus rejected the same. The other two orders pertain to rejecting the request for furnishing copies of books of accounts for the year 1994-95. The trial Court has rejected the said prayer for supplying copies of books of accounts for the yeaar 1994-95 on the ground that the same have been produced by the complainant in the Court on 6.2.2008. The other request is for supplying copies of books of accounts to the extent it relate to petitioners from the year 1995-96 onwards till 2005-06. In all fairness learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that he shall at the costs of the present petitioners supply copies of books of accounts from the year 1994-95 till 2005-06. In this view of the matter no further orders in that regard are necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment reported in the case 2 of Kalyani Baskar v/s M.S.Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258. The ratio laid down by the said judgment has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Perused the impugned order. Same does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction at any rate at this stage. In the result writ petition is summarily dismissed. 26.2.08 3