-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2008. .............................................................. Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders. & Registrar’s orders. .............................................................. Mr.A.S. Kapse, for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2008 : 29TH AUGUST, 2008 : 29TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate for the Petitioner. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 14th July 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate by which an application made by the accused for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence has been allowed. 2. While allowing the said Application, -2- the learned Judge has observed thus :- "When the accused wants to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of the promissory note he has to prove that the original promissory note were handed over to the complainant and are in his possession. For this purpose the contention raised by the accused is justified. He is therefore, allowed to lead secondary evidence on the basis of the Photostat copy of the two promissory note by following the procedure laid down U/sec.65 r/w Sec.104 of the Indian Evidence Act." After having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find that no case is made out for interference. It is obvious that grant of application for leading additional evidence by the impugned order -3- cannot be construed to mean that the Trial Court has accepted the existence of the original promissory note and that the said promissory note was handed over to the Petitioner-Complainant. 3. The Petition is not entertained and the same is rejected by keeping all contentions on merits expressly open. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]