1 (Crim appln 2427/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2427 OF 2010 Mr.Tulsiram Babu Salvi ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.R.Sathyanarayanan i/b. Mr. Raviraj Gamase for Applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant is challenging the two orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 55th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in the criminal case filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. So far as the first order is concerned, i.e. regarding exhibiting of certain documents which were produced by the Complainant, an application was made for de-exhibiting the said documents. The learned 2 (Crim appln 2427/10) Judge was pleased to reject the said application by holding that the documents were exhibitedin accordance with the provisions of sections 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act and further observed that at the time exhibiting the documents, the accused had not raised any objection regarding admissibility of the said documents. 4. The second order is passed on an application filed by the applicant for taking action against the complainant under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. on account of making alterations in the complaint after it was filed in the Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the document viz. the office copy of demand notice dated 8.12.2003 sent by registered A.D. and UPC. It is submitted that the office copy being a secondary evidence could not have been exhibited. He submitted that no evidence was led by the complainant in his affidavit in lieu of evidence and, thirdly it is submitted that it is not a public document and, therefore, could not haven been exhibited under the provisions of sections 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act. 6. So far as the first submission is concerned, the 3 (Crim appln 2427/10) averments made in the affidavit in lieu of evidence will have to be seen. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the complainant has stated that he had asked his advocate to prepare a demand notice as per his instructions. Accordingly, the said notice was prepared by him and explained to him in Marathi. He has also stated that he had signed the demand notice dated 8.12.2008 at the end of the notice and had sent it by registered A.D. to the accused. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that the original was produced. This submission cannot be accepted since the original is obviously in possession of the accused and the office copy has been produced by the complainant on whose instructions the said notice was prepared. Therefore this objection is not sustained. 7. So far as the second order is concerned, an objection was raised by the accused that in paragraph 2 of the copy which was served on the accused, the following sentence was there at the end of paragraph no.2 The Complainant had got the said money as his commission from a builder Shri Dharmendra Pandey as brokerage for getting a customer for the flat of the said builder at Badlapur . 4 (Crim appln 2427/10) It is submitted that, however, in the original complaint in said paragraph 2 the last three lines were erased and were substituted by the following sentence. The Complainant had got the money by taking loan from the Municipal Co-operative Bank, Ghatkopar (East) Branch. 8. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that it was obvious that the alteration was made in the Court Copy and the said alteration was made in blue ink, whereas the other alterations were made in black ink. It is submitted that therefore, the copy which was served on the accused did not contain the said alteration. The Trial Court has rejected the said contention by observing that the contents of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and the complaint are one and the same and secondly, the learned Magistrate has observed that since the copy was in the possession of the Court, the said alterations could not have been made after it was filed. 9. In my view, there is no infirmity in the said order. The complainant has given an explanation by giving two replies. He has stated that merely because 5 (Crim appln 2427/10) the amendment which was made in the complaint before it was filed in a court was not carried in the copy which was served on the accused no inference could be drawn that the amendment was made subsequently. In my view, the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order and in any case, I do not think that this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate while exercising the inherent power vested under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)