1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1581 OF 2006 Kishor Kirtilal Mehta. ...Applicant. Vs. Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Mahesh Jethmalalni with Mr.Pranav Badheka and Mr. Shane Sapeco i/b. Hariani & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.Anil Desai with Mr.Sanjeev Kadam i/b. M/s.Nankani & Asso. for Respondent No.1. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. July 21, 2008. P.C. On 23rd August 2006, the Division Bench of this Court (J.N. Petel & Smt.Roshan Dalvi, JJ.) observed that the whole controversy hovers around the allegations that in a meeting of the Board of Trustees of Lilavai Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Resolution dated 22nd July 1995 came to be passed in absence of the complainant and his wife and their signatures were forged and therefore, as part of the 2 investigation certain documents are required to be examined by hand writing expert. The Division Bench noted that the learned counsel for the parties had agreed that the Government Hand Writing Expert can be appointed as Commissioner of the Court to examine the documents and give his opinion to the Court and the costs and fees of the Commissioner would be shared equally by the parties. Pursuant to this order, therefore, the disputed documents have been sent to Government Hand Writing Expert. Admittedly the Chief Examiner of Documents, Pune has sent his opinion dated 15th June 2008 to this Court. 2. In this application, the applicant/intervenor has prayed that this Court may permit him through his counsel to inspect the documents and take colour xerox copies of the documents returned by the Chief Examiner of Documents, Pune in the presence of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, the Petitioner's lawyers and learned Public Prosecutor to verify as to what is 'Q' and N1 to N15 for which the necessary charges would be paid by the applicant. The applicant has also prayed that a direction be given to the Prothonotary & 3 Senior Master of this Court not to part with the documents in favour of the petitioner until this Court hears and disposes of the Writ Petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Jethmalani, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the opinion of the Chief Examiner of Documents is cryptic. He has given one line opinion and therefore, the applicant wants to inspect the documents and take colour xerox copies of the disputed documents as well as the admitted documents for the purpose of verification. Mr.Desai, learned counsel for respondent no.1 strenuously opposed the prayer made by Mr.Jethmalani. He submitted that the applicant wants to widen the scope of this complaint. He drew our attention to the order dated 23rd August 2006 passed by the Division Bench headed by Justice J.N. Patel where the Division Bench has observed that in case the intervener wants to take inspection of any of the documents relating to the affairs of the Trust a civil suit is pending between them before the civil court and they can very well apply to the Court for seeking such inspection and the court seized of the matter can pass appropriate order in accordance with law if such 4 application is made. Mr.Desai submitted that though such a clear observation was made by the Division Bench, the applicant has not made any application for inspection of the documents in the civil court. The present application is, therefore, not bonafide. Mr.Desai further submitted that in fact, the order dated 23rd August 2006 is passed by consent of the parties, inspection of all the documents was taken by the parties and their respective counsel and therefore, it is not necessary to give either inspection of the documents or copies of the documents to the applicant. 4. We feel that once the parties have by consent sent the documents to the Hand Writing Expert, there is nothing wrong in giving copies of the disputed and admitted documents to the applicant. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, the applicant's prayer deserves to be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 have tendered in the Court, a list jointly prepared and initialed by them which identifies documents of which colour photo copies are to be handed over to the applicant and to the 1st 5 respondent. It also identifies documents of which colour xerox copies are to be handed over to the State. The said list is taken on record and marked “X”. We direct the Prothonotary & Senior Master to handover colour photo copies of documents to the applicant, to the 1st respondent and colour xerox copies to the State as per the said list at the cost of the applicant and the 1st respondent. 6. Mr.Jethmalani urged that the Prothonotary & Senior Master be directed not to part with disputed documents in favour of the petitioner until the Court disposes of the petition. We find that by order dated 8th September 2006, the Division Bench has directed that on documents being returned by the Commissioner to the Court, the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition would be entitled to collect the documents in the presence of other side Advocate, learned Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer. Since we have directed the Prothonotary & Senior Master to give colour photo copies of all the documents to the 1st respondent-petitioner, we feel that order dated 8th September 2006 needs to be slightly modified. In view of our above order, we direct the Prothonotary & Senior Master to retain the 6 originals of all the documents in this Court till the disposal of the Writ Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the parties shall approach the Prothonotary & Senior Master on Friday, 25th July 2008 for compliance of the order. 8. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. The Writ Petition to be kept for direction of 28th July 2008. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) ( DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)