IMRAN KHAN IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. GUJANAN ISHWARLAL MAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Shri U.J. Deshpande for the petitioner and learned Counsel Shri Junaid Ahmed for the respondent. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Summary Criminal Case No. 1593/2010. The said complaint case is filed by the respondent. The evidence of respondent is over. The respondent/original complainant made an application for his further examination-in-chief to produce certain documents, which have already been referred to by him in the examination-in-chief. The said application was granted by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. It is submitted by learned Counsel Shri U.J. Deshpande that the respondent could not have been allowed to fill up the lacunas in his case. In my considered opinion, the grant of application does not amount granting permission to fill up the lacunas. The documents referred in the application are already within the knowledge of the petitioner. Those documents have been referred in the examination-in-chief of the respondent. Therefore, it does not amount to filling up the lacunas in the case of the respondent. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner inasmuch as the documents and contents thereof were within the knowledge of the petitioner. The apprehension of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents once produced in the Court will be exhibited and will be read in evidence, in my opinion, is not well founded. Mere production of documents or exhibition thereof in the Court does not amount to proof of documents and contents thereof. It does not amount to proof of truthfulness of the contents of the documents. These three stages are all together different and the respondent has to take care of his case in this regard. The application of the respondent was only for production of documents in the Court through further examination-in-chief of the respondent. I, therefore, do not find any fault in the order of the learned Magistrate. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Ad interim order stands vacated.