{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3988 OF 2009 Pralhad Dattu Patil Age-50 years, Occ-Agri R/o Ajanad Bungalow Tq-Shirpur, Dist-Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS Sharad Lilchand Gujar Age-35 years, Occ-Agri R/o Near Mahanubhav Shri Krushna Temple, Kharde (Gujar) Tq-Shirpur, Dist-Dhule RESPONDENT ....... Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for applicant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 15th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the JMFC, Shirpur below Exhibit-68 in STCC No.574/2007. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, though duly served. Perused the documents produced along with the application. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the just decision of this case, may briefly be summarized thus - The applicant is the original complainant, who has filed complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present respondent before the JMFC, Shirpur. It further appears that in the said case, by leading evidence along with affidavit of examination in chief of the complainant, he has also produced a list of documents on which he wants to rely. It also appears that along with Exhibit-34, zerox copy of the memo received from the bank showing that the cheque is bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent is annexed. It further appears that when the said document was tendered, initially objection was raised and hence the same was not exhibited. Therefore, an application at Exhibit-68 calling the manager of the bank to prove the memo, as the same is not exhibited during the trial came t o be filed. After the said application came to be filed on 14.10.2009, say of the other side was obtained. Thereafter, after hearing both the sides, an order came to be passed on 04.11.2009 and the said application came to be rejected. It is observed by the learned trial court that if the said application is allowed the same would {3} amount to opening of the trial and the rights, which are accrued in favour of the respondents, would damage. 4. During the course of submissions, it is urged on behalf of the applicant that in case the document is not proved by calling the witness, then the entire case would be spoiled. The Courts must not be too technical and the courts should exercise the procedure to meet the ends of justice. If the application is rejected then in appeal again the same prayer would come with a further prayer to remand the matter for fresh hearing by giving opportunity to the parties to lead proper evidence in support of their contentions. It is to be noted that a stitch in time saves further nine and in the premise if any irregularity is found, the same can be cured at this juncture, as the arguments of the parties are yet to be over and the judgment is yet to be pronounced. In the premise, if there is mistake or irregularity that can be cured by saddling cost. In the premise, the impugned order needs to be quashed. 5. In the result, the application is hereby allowed. The order dated 04.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-68 in STCC No. 574/2007 pending on the file of JMFC, Shirpur is hereby quashed and set aside and the application Exhibit-68 is hereby allowed. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 29.01.2010. In case the respondent fails to appear before the {4} trial court, the learned JMFC, Shirpur to issue notice to him and then to proceed with the further trial and dispose of the same in accordance with law. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln3988-09