1 APPLN 3311/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3311 OF 2010 M/s. Rasiklal Ratilal .... Applicant. V/s M/s Fancy Corporation Ltd & Ors. .... Respondents. --- Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicant. Mr. Amit Sheth for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 1st December, 2010 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Applicant is the original complainant. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 14/7/2010 on his application filed for marking the documents which were tendered by him alongwith the affidavit in lieu of evidence as exhibits since he has proved those documents. The learned Magistrate, however, by the impugned order dated 14/7/2010, observed that this issue shall be decided at the time of delivering the judgment. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that after 2 APPLN 3311/2010 having observed that the documents be marked as exhibits, the learned Magistrate has observed that it should be marked for the purpose of identification. 4. In my view, after observing that the documents should be marked as exhibits, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to then observe that it should be marked for identification. According to the applicant, he has proved the documents. According to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the said documents are not proved and are not admissible in evidence for various reasons. In my view, therefore, it would be appropriate if the observation made by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 14/7/2010 that documents be exhibited as per rules for identification is set aside and rest of the order is confirmed. 5. Accordingly, the observation made by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 14/7/2010 that documents be exhibited as per rules for identification is set aside and rest of the order is confirmed. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. 6. Application is disposed off in the above terms. Trial Court shall deliver the judgment as expeditiously as possible. V.M. KANADE, J.