1 WP-1215-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2009 Mohammed Illiyas Patel ) Age 40 years, Occu: Business ) residing at Policepatel, House ) No.225/B, R.No.19, Opp. Sheetal ) Theater, Kurla Village, Kurla (W), ) Mumbai 400 070. ).. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra ) 2. Mr. Suleman M. Lakadawala ) Prop. of M/s. Patel Bros. ) 326-330, Sir J.J. Road, ) Christ Church Compound, ) Byculla Mumbai 400 008. )..Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w. A.D.Gangal,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Shri Abhay S. Khandeparkar i/b. Datta H.Pawar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th July, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 WP-1215-09.sxw 2. The respondent No.2 filed the complaint alleging that amount of Rs. 32 lakh was due from the present petitioner/accused and he had issued a cheque which was dishonoured. On the complaint, case under Section 138 was registered and it proceeded for evidence. The defence of the petitioner was that he had taken loan of Rs.20 lakh and he had issued two blank cheques. The complainant- respondent No.2 produced the balance sheets to show that amount of Rs.32 lakh was lying in deposit with the petitioner. He was cross-examined also. Later on, the Income Tax Department produced the copies of the balance sheets, which the respondent No.2 had filed before the Income Tax Authorities, for the same period indicating that amount of Rs.20 lakh was lying as deposit with the petitioner. As those documents came before the Court after the evidence of the complainant was closed, the petitioner wanted the respondent No.2-complainant to be recalled for further cross-examination. That application was rejected by the trial court. 3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the application under Sec. 311 and to recall the complainant for further cross-examination in light of the documents which came to light later on. 4. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The trial Court in C.C.No. 3 WP-1215-09.sxw 798/SS/2007 is hereby directed to recall the complainant for further cross- examination by the accused. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)