IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3689 OF 2008 Shri Vipin Diwedi .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr Apoorva Singh Advocate for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. Mr Raja Thakare a/w Shri Madhukar Dalvi for the State-Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. It is the application filed by the original accused challenging the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli Mumbai in case No.90/S/2003 dated 10th July, 2008 and 14th August,2008. By the said orders, seven documents came to be marked as Exhibits 24,25,26,27,28,29 and 30, in view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-accused submitted that the said documents could not have been exhibited, as the witness to whom they were confronted during the trial, was not the author of the documents and he only identified the signatures of the accused person. 2. Learned Advocate Shri Raja Thakare appearing for the original complainant - Respondent No.2 accepted that there is difference between exhibiting any document and still reading its contents as to truthfulness and further agreed that exhibiting a document can be treated as the proof as to the execution thereof. In fact, on challenging the said exhibition of the documents the matter before the Trial Court has been prolonged for about six months. 3. In the opinion of this Court, the better course open for the Trial Magistrate was to mark the said documents subject to objection raised on behalf of the accused and to thrash out the matter at the final stage. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court mere marking of the documents cannot be taken as equivalent to the authenticity as to the contents and as to the correctness of the contents. This view has already been conceded by the learned Advocate Shri Raja Thakare for original complainant-respondent No.2. 4. In view of above, it will be open for the Trial Magistrate to ascertain at the end of the trial whether to read the said documents in evidence or not, in view of the specific provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as to the proof of the documents and in view of these observations present criminal application stands disposed of. 5. Needless to mention that the Trial Magistrate can take due precaution as per the law while dealing with the evidential value of said exhibited documents. In view of this order, earlier stay to the pending proceeding before the Trial Magistrate stands vacated. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)