1 Cri.W.P.689 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.689 OF 2006 Ramesh S/o.Balaji Mahewar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court to question the correctness of the order of dismissal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Criminal Revision No. 13/2006, vide its judgment and order dated 28/06/2006 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also for respondents. It is not under dispute that the respondent no.2 herein had filed a complaint before learned J,.M.F.C. Naigaon u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act, which was numbered as SCC No.632/2002. In the said complaint, evidence of respondent no.2 and his witnesses were recorded. It is informed that thereafter, petitioner/accused was 2 Cri.W.P.689 of 2006 also examined u/s. 313 of The Cr.P.C. At that stage, the petitioner alleged that the cheque and the office copy of the legal notice, which he has tendered in his evidence were remained to be exhibited. In view of this, respondent no.2 had filed an application before the learned Trial Court vide Exh.55 to exhibit those documents. The learned Trial Court, by its order below Exh.55, allowed the application and exhibited the cheque as Exh.18-A and office copy of the legal notice at Exh.18-B. While allowing the application, it was held by the learned Trial Court that if the evidence given by the concerned is sufficient to exhibit the documents tendered in his evidence, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to exhibit those documents. Thus the documents remained to be exhibited, is the mistake on the part of Presiding Officer and in his discretion, he can exhibit those documents and accordingly he exhibited those documents. The said order of exhibiting the documents was challenged in Criminal Revision No.13/2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, and the order was upheld. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have no grievance about the order passed by the learned Magistrate, but they have grievance about the observations of the Revisional Court made in para no.9 that the documents are exhibited means the contents therein are proved and only on this ground, he has questioned the correctness of the order. 3. Considering the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which was the subject matter before the Revisional Court, this Court is of 3 Cri.W.P.689 of 2006 the view that this Court did not find any fault with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. However, the observations of the Revisional Court are un-warranted, but the ultimate finding recorded is correct that the revision stands dismissed, to which this Court is not having any objection. However, it is made clear that to exhibit the document is one aspect and on hearing the parties to hold that the contents therein stands proved, as required to be proved under Law, is another. 4. Bearing in mind all these aspects, present writ petition sans any merit, hence dismissed. Learned Trial Court, not to influence with the observations of this Court, but to decide the complaint pending on its file in accordance with Law and while deciding the complaint, learned Trial Court to give an opportunity to both the sides to address on the point, whether the documents exhibited are properly proved or not and the contents therein are also proved or not. With this clarification, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Both the parties to appear before the learned Trial Court within the period of 2 weeks from the date of this order. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. In case, parties failed to appear within 2 weeks, then the learned Trial Court to issue notices to both the parties for their appearance. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.w.p.689-06