( 1 ) Cri.Appln3026-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3026 OF 2010 Kisan Baburao Hajare APPLICANT VERSUS Suresh Bhikamchand Jain & another RESPONDENTS .... Smt. Quazi Sadaf, advocate holding for Mr. J.R. Shaikh, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant challenges order dated 5th June, 2010, rendered by learned Judicial magistrate (F.C.), Jalgaon whereby application seeking production of documents by the original complainant before the Court came to be rejected. 2. The applicant is original accused in the proceedings of a private complaint case bearing S.C.C. No. 2911/2003. the respondent No. 1 initiated the private complaint proceedings for alleged offence of defamation. ( 2 ) Cri.Appln3026-10 3. The respondent No.1 admitted, during course of his examination, that he was President of the Municipal Council for ten (10) years and had contested the election on seven (7) occasions for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and had been elected as M.L.A. on seven (7) occasions as well as had been a Cabinet Minister. The application seeking calling of such documents alongwith the details of the amount of honorarium/income and the declaration made by the respondent No. 1 was sought by the applicant. 4. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and on perusal of the copy of the application (Exh-D attached to the present application), filed in the proceedings of the criminal case and the impugned order, two (2) things are amply clear. First, all the documents sought to be produced could be obtained by the applicant by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Secondly, the applicant did not give any specific reason for calling of the documents. He did not make it clear as to why the documents were necessary for the purpose of effective cross-examination of the respondent No.1. Nor he spelt out relevancy of those documents in the criminal proceedings before the learned Magistrate. The learned ( 3 ) Cri.Appln3026-10 Judicial Magistrate has assigned valid reasons while rejecting the application. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant seeks to rely on judgement of a Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in "S.K. Singhal v. State of M.P. through P.S., Industrial" (1997 Cri.L.J. 3145). In the given case, the impugned order rendered by the trial Court was set aside because the rejection of the prayer was found to have been made without assigning reasons and without conducting enquiry. That is not the fact situation in the present case. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court is not binding on this Court. Considering these aspects, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3026-10 ( 4 ) Cri.Appln3026-10