1 (cri appw 393 of 2010 in wp 822 of 2010)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.393 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2010 Vishal Harichandrai Khanna ...Applicant/Petitioner vs. Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Kedar G. Prabhu for Applicant -Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for restoration. It is submitted that due to unavoidable reasons, the Applicant could not remain present on the said date before the Court. For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 23.8.2010 is recalled and writ petition may be restore to the file. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. The Applicant is challenging the order 2 (cri appw 393 of 2010 in wp 822 of 2010)) passed by the learned Magistrate who was pleased to reject the Applicant’s application for production of certain documents by the Complainant and which order was confirmed by the Sessions Court in criminal revision application filed by the Applicant herein. The Applicant had filed application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C., asking the Complainant to produce certain documents which are mentioned in the said application. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application, firstly on the ground that the accused could not compel the complainant to become witness for himself and that too after the entire evidence of the complainant was over and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate was observed that it was not clear as to how the said documents sought by the Accused are relevant. The learned Magistrate also observed that ultimately if the Court is satisfied that the documents were relevant and were suppressed by the Complainant, then adverse inference would be drawn against him under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. In revision, the Sessions Court has also observed that the true copies of the alleged invoices were given by the Complainant himself to the Applicant-Accused and, therefore, the factum of the alleged invoices is neither disputed nor denied by the Complainant. The 3 (cri appw 393 of 2010 in wp 822 of 2010)) submission made by the learned counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons while rejecting the application. I agree with the reasons given by both the Courts. 4. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by both the Courts below and, therefore no case is made out for interfering with the orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner. 5. Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)