* 1 * Cri.Appln.3639.2010 26.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3639 OF 2010 M/s. Auro Laboratories Ltd ....Applicants/Orig. Complainant V/S. Shri. Mrigenda M. Jalan & Ors. ....Respondents * * * * Mr. S.K. Jain i/by. M/s. S.K. Jain & Associates, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM :- K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. 26 September, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that affidavit of service is filed in the matter. The same statement was made on 7th and 14th December, 2010 before this Court. Fresh notices were directed by order dated 10th June, 2011. The learned counsel for the applicant was at liberty to serve the counsel appearing for the respondent and consequently such notice is served upon the learned Advocate representing the respondent in the trial Court. Affidavit to that effect is filed. Reading the above facts, it is apparent that there is appropriate service to the respondent-original accused. 3. The conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged by respondent in Appeal No. 231 of 2008 to 234 of 2008. It * 2 * Cri.Appln.3639.2010 26.9.2010 revealed that the affidavit-in-chief of the complainant did not carry verification. Based on such application to allow the complainant to file verification, permission was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The matter was carried to this Court in Criminal Applications No. 5553 of 2009 to 5556 of 2009 by the respondent. By order dated April 20, 2010 this Court modified the order as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the extent that the application is allowed subject to the complainant offering himself for cross-examination by the applicant- accused. 4. The text of the order of this Court clearly spells out in paragraph-5 the limited relief. 5. “ The limited relief claimed by the applicants is genuine. If one party leads an additional evidence, the other party must have a right to cross examine on the aspect of the said additional evidence.” 5. It is nobody’s case that the complainant-applicant has lead additional evidence baring the addition of verification clause. This, therefore is indicative of the fact that no additional evidence is needed. The complainant cannot be again directed to subject himself to further cross- examination. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge being not speaking the text and texture of the order of this Court, is set aside. The petition is allowed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J]