Judgment : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prays that the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu (District : Parbhani), below Exhibits 94 and 104, in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be quashed and set aside and both the said applications Exhibits 94 and 104, filed in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be allowed. 4. The petitioner is running a shop under the name and style as Mirag Agro Services & Consultants, Sailu, of which he is a proprietor. Respondent no.2 is the Director of one Company called as Biovision Corporation, Pune, which is engaged in the activities of manufacturing organic fertilizers. There were commercial transactions between them and parties had arrived at the settlement on 28-5-2004 of the outstanding dues and it was decided that an amount of Rs. 18,12,044/-would be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.2's Company in three instalments. It was also agreed between them that there would be three instalments of Rs. 7,50,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/-and Rs. 5,62,044/-, respectively. It was further agreed between them that the petitioner would submit three cheques of the aforesaid amounts as security and on receipt of payment of the same, the cheques received towards security would be returned. Accordingly, on receipt of the first instalment of the amount, as aforesaid, on 9-6-2004, the cheque received towards the security was returned by the respondent no.2 and so was the position in respect of the second instalment and even the second cheque was returned by the respondent no.2 after receipt of the amount of the said cheque. However, as regards the last instalment of Rs. 5,62,044/-, the petitioner claims that he paid the said amount to the respondent no.2 on 19-11-2004 but last cheque was not returned by the respondent no.2 (original accused), to the petitioner, on the ground that same was missing and same would be returned as soon as it would be traced. However, to avoid any further complications, payment of the said cheque was stopped by the petitioner. However, to avoid any further complications, payment of the said cheque was stopped by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know from his banker that the cheque which was alleged to be received was deposited by the respondent no.2 for encashment in January 2005. According to the petitioner, at one hand, respondent no.2 (original accused) contended that the cheque was missing, but on the other hand, he deposited the said cheque for encashment with dishonest intention. Hence, present petitioner filed complaint against respondent no.2 for breach of trust and cheating, etc. under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu, issued the order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the said complaint. Accordingly, crime was registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, against respondent no.2. 6. During the investigation, Police personnel collected the evidence and recorded statements of the witnesses and also collected necessary documents, such as, copies of settlement dated 28-5-2004, copies of letters received from respondent no.2 dated 9-6-2004 and 19-11-2004. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 applied for discharge but the said application was rejected. The said order was assailed before learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, but even said order was maintained before the said court. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses i.e. petitioner himself, one Pralhad s/o. Dagdoba Barsale, and one Ramkishan Panhalkar, Investigating Officer. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner (original complainant) preferred an application Exhibit 94 on 15-12-2011 seeking permission for production of documents. The respondent no.2 (original accused) apparently filed his say and opposed the said application. Learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sailu, passed order thereon on 15-12-2011 itself, as mentioned below:- "Perused application and say filed thereon by accused. Today, the prosecution is not ready to argue the matter and want an adjournment for the cause. At this fag end prosecution wants adjournment. Yet considering the charge levelled against accused, adjournment is granted subject to penalty of Rs. 300/-(Rs. Three Hundred) to the prosecution. " Thereafter, statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 4-8-2012. At this fag end prosecution wants adjournment. Yet considering the charge levelled against accused, adjournment is granted subject to penalty of Rs. 300/-(Rs. Three Hundred) to the prosecution. " Thereafter, statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 4-8-2012. After recording said statement, the petitioner i.e. original complainant and the prosecution preferred another application Exhibit 104 on 7-8-2012, contending that the documents enlisted as per list Exhibit 94 be exhibited. The respondent no.2 (original accused) filed his say and opposed the said application. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu, passed an order on 7-8-2012 and rejected both the applications i.e. Exhibit 94 and Exhibit 104. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 7-8-2012, the petitioner i.e. original complainant has approached this Court by filing the present petition for the prayers as set out herein above. 10. The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply and denied the averments and contentions made by the petitioner in the present petition, unless admitted specifically. According to respondent no.2, in fact, the petitioner has preferred application at Exhibit 94 for production of documents after recording of evidence of the witnesses and even the said application Exhibit 94 was not pressed for about eight months since 15-12-2011. Moreover, it is also submitted that the application Exhibit 104 was preferred by the petitioner after recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it is submitted that both the said applications have been filed with ulterior motive to protract the trial and to fill up lacunae and laches in the complainant's case. Accordingly, Adv. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, for respondent no.2, urged that present petition, which has been filed by the petitioner to harass the respondent no.2, deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned Adv. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, for respondent no.2, has relied upon judicial pronouncement of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of MadanLal & 2 others Vs. Accordingly, Adv. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, for respondent no.2, urged that present petition, which has been filed by the petitioner to harass the respondent no.2, deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned Adv. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, for respondent no.2, has relied upon judicial pronouncement of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of MadanLal & 2 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2000 Crimes (2) 614, wherein it is held that in an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when arguments were heard and the case was posted for judgment, and at this stage, application for recall of prosecution witnesses was made, then such application filed after long gap was nothing but with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case and, therefore, same was dismissed. 12. At the outset, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi, for the petitioner, invited my attention to the fact that the three documents which were sought to be produced by the petitioner by application Exhibit 94 on 15-12-2011 were already on record in the form of copies thereof. The said copies were annexed along with the charge sheet which are at Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", respectively, of the present petition. Hence, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there was no question of invoking provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as observed by the learned trial court, since copies of the said documents were already filed along with the charge sheet. He also pointed out that the said application Exhibit 94 was not disposed of and only order regarding grant of adjournment on payment of penalty was passed on 15-12-2011 thereon. Hence, the petitioner preferred another application at Exhibit 104 on 7-8-2012 and prayed that documents enlisted as per list at Exhibit 94 be exhibited. However, said application came to be rejected by order dated 7-8-2012 which is impugned in the present petition. According to him, opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to produce the said documents on record and respondent no.2 (original accused) also be given opportunity to cross examine the petitioner in that respect. However, said application came to be rejected by order dated 7-8-2012 which is impugned in the present petition. According to him, opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to produce the said documents on record and respondent no.2 (original accused) also be given opportunity to cross examine the petitioner in that respect. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in fact, application Exhibit 94 was preferred on 15-12-2011 i.e. prior to recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and since no effective order was passed thereon, he was compelled to prefer another application Exhibit 104 on 7-8-2012 i.e. after recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 4-8-2012 and hence, it is submitted that even additional statement of the accused in that respect also can be recorded, if required and accordingly submitted that the present petition be allowed. 13. I have perused contents of the present petition, application Exhibit 94 and order passed thereon on 15-12-2011, application Exhibit 104 and impugned order passed thereon on 7-8-2012, and heard rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties anxiously. Also perused judicial pronouncement cited by the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, carefully. 14. At the outset, it is apparent that the copies of three documents which were sought to be produced by the petitioner, by application Exhibit 94 on 15-12-2011 were already on record which were annexed along with the charge sheet and, therefore, there was no question of invoking provision of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it also appears that the said documents were referred by the petitioner during his examination-in-chief, Exhibit "G" to the petition, and the deposition of petitioner's witness, namely, Pralhad s/o. Dagadoba Barsale, apparently, is in tune with deposition of the petitioner. True it is, that the petitioner preferred application Exhibit 94 after recording of evidence of his witnesses. But it was preferred before recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, no effective order was passed on the said application except granting adjournment and costs to the prosecution. Hence, application Exhibit 104 was preferred on 7-8-2012, praying that the documents enlisted as per list Exhibit 94 be accepted. But it was preferred before recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, no effective order was passed on the said application except granting adjournment and costs to the prosecution. Hence, application Exhibit 104 was preferred on 7-8-2012, praying that the documents enlisted as per list Exhibit 94 be accepted. However, both the said applications were rejected by the impugned order dated 7-8-2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), observing that there was delay and even statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and production of documents was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As mentioned herein above, there was no question of invoking provision of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since copies of the said documents were already on record which were filed along with charge sheet and even reference thereof was made in examination in chief of the petitioner. 15. On the aforesaid scenario, in fact, application preferred by the petitioner, Exhibit 94, should have been allowed, giving opportunity to the petitioner, but no effective order was passed thereon and, therefore, petitioner preferred another application Exhibit 104, requesting to exhibit the documents which are enlisted as per Exhibit 94. In fact, by allowing first application Exhibit 94 itself, the issue in controversy would have been resolved and, at the most, opportunity should have been given to the respondent no.2 to cross examine the petitioner to that extent, since the court has got wide powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in that respect, with a view to have just decision of the case and to meet the ends of justice. In the said context, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances in the present case, and the facts and circumstances in the judicial pronouncement of Madhya Pradesh High Court, relied upon by the learned Advocate for respondent no.2, in the case of MadanLal & 2 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) differ from each other, since in the present case, arguments have not been advanced, whereas in the case cited supra, arguments were heard and case was posted for judgment and, therefore, observations made in the said case will not be of any aid and assistance to the case of respondent no.2. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) differ from each other, since in the present case, arguments have not been advanced, whereas in the case cited supra, arguments were heard and case was posted for judgment and, therefore, observations made in the said case will not be of any aid and assistance to the case of respondent no.2. 16. In the circumstances, present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 7-8-2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside, extending opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents, and respondent no.2 also shall be given opportunity to counter the same. 17. In the result, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7-8-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu, below Exhibits 94 and 104, in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, is quashed and set aside. The applications Exhibits 94 and 104 before the trial court stand allowed. However, trial court shall give due opportunity to respondent no.2 (original accused) to counter the documents as per list at Exhibit 94 and, if necessary, additional statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also be recorded. It is made clear that the observations made above are limited for the disposal of the present petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the Regular Criminal Case No. 22/2005 and the trial court shall decide the said Regular Criminal Case in accordance with law and on its own merits. 18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.