1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLN. No.1297/2010 Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali -vs- Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal AND CRI. APPLN. No.1298/2010 Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali -vs- Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.R. Saboo, counsel for applicant. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2010 . The applicant-original accused has presented these criminal applications raising exceptions to the interlocutory order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Achalpur on 29th July, 2010. The respondent-original complainant presented two different complaints under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Initially, a request was made by the accused-applicant herein for trial of both the criminal complaints together. However, the application was 2 opposed by the complainant and as such the request made by the accused was turned down. It is further contended that after the closer of evidence of both the sides, application came to be presented by the complainant seeking return of documents (i.e. certified copy of cheque and memo) for being presented in the another companion matter and vice-versa. The application was opposed by the accused on several grounds. However, considering the technical defect which occurred in prosecuting the complainant at the instance of the complainant, the trial Court proceeded to allow the application, in view of the impugned order. It is contended by the counsel appearing for accused that a severe prejudice is caused to the accused on account of grant of the application, as the admissions recorded favouring the accused during the course of evidence are likely to be nullified. It is also contended that the impugned order passed is in violation of the provisions of the Code and is also not contemplated by any of the provisions of the Criminal Manual. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order. It appears that because of inadvertence the copy of the cheque and memo which was required to be presented in one complaint is presented on record of another 3 complaint and vice-versa. The inadvertent error occurred while prosecuting the complaint is tried to be rectified by presenting appropriate application on behalf of the complainant. The Trial Court relying upon the judgment in the matter of Govardhan Das -vs- State of Maharashtra through The Police Station Officer, Nagpur & Anr. reported in 2008 (3) AIR Bom R, 74, has proceeded to consider the application preferably. I do not find that the Trial Court has committed any error in granting the application tendered by the complainant. The Trial Court has also granted liberty to the accused to take further appropriate steps in the matter. The view adopted by the Trial Court appears to be reasonable and proper. At this interlocutory stage of proceedings, no interference is called for in exercise of inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applications are devoid of substance, hence, stand rejected. JUDGE KHUNTE