Judgment Heard Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. D.B. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. Aditya Satpute h/f Dr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant has impugned the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur dated 3rd May, 2011 passed during the course of recording of evidence of the complainant/non-applicant No.2 in Criminal Complaint Case No.2530/2010. The applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the said case. During the Course of examination-in-chief of the complainant i.e. non-applicant No.2, the cheque in question was shown to non-applicant No.2 and he had identified the cheque to be the same cheque, which was given to him by the applicant. The amount of cheque is Rs.5,00,000/-. Non-applicant No.2 in his evidence has further stated that the cheque was signed by the applicant. When the cheque was being exhibited, an objection raised on behalf of the applicant that whole of the document might not be exhibited as the witness had not proved the contents of the document as a whole. The learned Counsel Mr. Satpute submitted that since the witness has not stated anything about rest of the contents except the signature of the applicant, the signature only could have been exhibited. The learned Counsel Mr. Satpute has submitted that since the witness has identified the signature of the applicant on the cheque, which is not denied, the cheque could have been exhibited as a whole. 4. I have gone through the particular portion of evidence. It can be seen that the witness has said about the signature only. The witness has identified the signature only and has kept mum regarding the authorship and rest of the contents of the document. In the circumstances, the contention of Mr. Khajanchi will have to be accepted. At the same time, Non-applicant No.2 is at liberty to ask further questions regarding rest of the contents of the document (cheque) and he is at liberty to get the document exhibited in accordance with law. The application is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions. (i) The signature of the applicant shall be exhibited on the cheque in question. At the same time, Non-applicant No.2 is at liberty to ask further questions regarding rest of the contents of the document (cheque) and he is at liberty to get the document exhibited in accordance with law. The application is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions. (i) The signature of the applicant shall be exhibited on the cheque in question. (ii) Non-applicant No.2 is at liberty to prove rest of the contents of the documents and get the document exhibited in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of accordingly.