IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2008 M/s. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Ltd. & anr. .... Petitioner versus J.R. Lalwani & anr. ...... Respondent. Mr S.V.Marwadi for the petitioner. Mr. Lal Kriplani for Respondent no.1. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa APP for State. CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for quite sometime, the learned counsel does not press this petition and seeks clarification that it shall be open for the petitioner/accused to summon the concerned witness from HDFC bank with a view to seek production of the three documents, on which the petitioners are placing reliance in support of the defence. The learned counsel for the respondent has tried to contend that under one pretext or the other, the matter has been prolonged and thus seeks direction for expeditious disposal. Perusal of the order passed by the courts below clearly indicate that after the evidence of the complainant is over, it shall be open for the present petitioners/accused to summon the relevant witnesses seeking production of the documents to substantiate the defence. Hence petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, it is clarified that after the evidence of the complainant is over and the petitioner/accused commences their evidence, it shall be open for the petitioner/accused to summon the witness and seek production of the documents referred to in the impugned orders. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner no.2 is a resident of Ahmedabad and it would not be possible for him to attend the proceedings in the trial court on the next date. Exemption from appearance is therefore sought by assuring this court that the smooth progress of the case would not be hampered and the petitioner no.2 would be represented by an advocate who would proceed with the cross examination without seeking any adjournment. In this view of the matter, as the assurance has been given that the trial would proceed despite absence of the petitioner no.2, as he would be represented by an advocate who would conduct the cross examination, the petitioner no.2 is granted exemption from appearance in the proceedings before the trial court on the next date. ....