1 wp2639-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2639 OF 2010 Jithendra Popatlal Navlakha .. Petitioner Versus Employees State Insurance Company and others .. Respondents Mr. Rahul Kadam for the petitioner Mr. H. V. Mehta for respondent no.1 Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. The impugned order is dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Pune below Exh.123 in CC No. 4 of 1998 regarding production of certain documents. At the end of the argument, the learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that the said order was further challenged before the Revisional Court which was turned down. However, no copy of the order is filed. It is seen that a complaint was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation regarding certain breaches about the maintenance of record required to be maintained under the Employees State Insurance Act. The complainant made all partners, parties as accused in the 2 wp2639-10 said complaint. They are in all 8. It appears that the only accused no.8 had filed application Exh.123 seeking production of certain documents required in their defence. It is seen that the said application came to be filed after the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. There is also no evidence to show that the accused issued any notice to produce the documents earlier on recod. It is also seen that this petition is filed on 31st September, 2010 impugning the order dated 12.11.2008 i.e. after about two years and, therefore, it suffers from delay and latches. Although it is stated that during the intervening period, revision was filed, but there is nothing on record about the same except the averments in the petition. No date of decision in the said revision is mentioned. No copy of the order is filed. 3. Further, it is seen that the witnesses of the complainant have been already examined and the trial is about to conclude. So, at this stage no interference, as it would further protract the trial. In that view of the matter petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )