SM 1 10.appln.4647.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION O. 4647 OF 2010 Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant Versus Wallams (I) Agro Products And Power Ltd. and ors. ....Respondents ____________ Shri. Harshad Bhadbhade i/b. M/s. Joy Legal Consultants for the Applicant. Mrs. Sunanda Kumbhat for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 19 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The Applicants takes exception to the order dated 28 th September, 2010 thereby refusing to take certain documents on record, which are sought to be produced in the evidence of P.W.-2 being examined on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicants are the Complainants in Complaint No. 12134 of 2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. In the said matter, initially Constituted Attorney of the company had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. However, the said Constituted Attorney had left the Applicant's company and therefore an application for substitution of the Constituted Attorney of SM 2 10.appln.4647.10 Ms. Nahida Shaikh was filed. The said application was allowed subject to the condition that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief should file within a period of one hour. 4. Subsequently, another witness, who is an employee of the Applicant’s company, namely, Sanjay Bhagia was examined as P.W.2 alongwith his evidence that he sought to produce following four documents on record. (i) Certificate incorporation. (ii) Board Resolution authorising Ms. Nahida Shaikh as the Constituted Attorney. (iii) Power of Attorney of the said Ms. Nahida Shaikh (iv) Ledger balance. 5. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the Applicants were trying to fill up the lacuna. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Application. 6. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Trial Court grossly erred in refusing the said documents to be taken on record. 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, vehemently opposes the Application on the ground that though the Applicants had an opportunity to produce the said documents on record during the SM 3 10.appln.4647.10 evidence of P .W.1 and since they h ave failed to do so, no relief can be granted in their favour. 8. The evidence of Petitioner is yet to be closed. The documents, which are sought to be placed on record are material for the purpose of deciding the complaint in question. In any case, since the Defendant/Accused has yet to open his defence, no prejudice will be caused to them, if the said documents are placed on record. 9. In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute by directing the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to place the aforesaid documents on record and after considering the rival submissions regarding exhibiting the same, pass appropriate orders. However, this shall be subject to costs quantified to Rs.15,000/-. The costs to be deposited in the Trail Court within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent/Accused will be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)