hvn 6//appln//3829.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3829 OF 2010 M/s. Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd. ... Applicant Versus M/s. Atharva Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajeev Verma, i/by Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R. Satyyanarayanan with Ms. Sharmila Kaushik for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 P.C. Heard extensively. An application in terms of section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved at the stage of defence arguments in the proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Rejection thereof by order dated 26.7.2010 by the learned 6th J.M.F.C. Vashi is questioned by the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the 1 hvn 6//appln//3829.10 resolution which was in existence could not be produced in time and it is curable defect and should have been entertained by the court concerned. He submits that the photostat copy of the resolution is already on record (part of Exh. 71). The Authority letter which is at page 59 dated 31.8.2006 addressed to the Manager Administration, does not indicate of such resolution. Hence, said application was moved. The learned counsel for the accused respondent read the orders of the learned Judge and some text of cross examination to impress that the witnesses accepts that barring the authority letter dated 31.8.2006, there is nothing to show authorisation. The evidence of the complainant has to be read as a whole. In the further part of his evidence, he has informed that he will be producing the original on the next date. The photostat of the original is at Exh. 71 of which fact the respondent was consciously aware. The prejudice that has been informed, is not a prejudice as the respondent claims. The mistake that is crept in, is not deliberate or to protract the matter. The authority letter dated 31.8.2006 did not indicate 2 hvn 6//appln//3829.10 any resolution recorded by the Chairman or Board of Directors. That was tried to be brought on record in the light of legal position. The exercise of powers under section 311 Cr.P.C. . did authorise the learned Judge to have allowed such requisition as sought by the complainant. Unfortunately the complainant argued the matter in respect of worth of the documents which are sought to be produced and the learned Judge swayed to it and dealt with the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. At the stage of such application, the genuineness of the resolution or the minutes of the meeting was not to be discussed or even not to be argued as has been done even before this court. The order under challenge of the learned Judge declining production of the document or calling of complainant, calls for interference. Hence, it is set aside. The complainant be recalled to produce the documents on payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The cost to be deposited before the learned J.M.F.C. 6th Court, Vashi on or before 18th October, 2011. The parties to appear before the learned Judge on 15.11.2011. Stay granted by this court is vacated. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3