JUDGMENT Both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the challenge is to a common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in two different Revision Applications, arising out of two different cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule. 2. By consent, Rule is issued in both the matters, and is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, both the matters are heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the original accused in two different cases which are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule. The cases are in respect of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent no.1 herein is the original complainant in the said cases. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status i.e. the petitioner as 'the accused' and the respondent no.1 - as 'the complainant'. The trial of the said cases is in progress. The complainant had already examined himself as a witness in both the cases. Along with his affidavit of examination-in-chief the complainant filed copies of a number of documents on which he placed reliance. It appears that only two of the said documents were, however, marked and exhibited. The other documents were not marked and/or exhibited. Trial progressed. The examination of the accused in both the cases under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code also took place. Thereafter, the complainant made applications in both these cases praying for recall of his witness. The complainant submitted that due to inadvertence, the documents annexed to the affidavit of evidence had not been proved and that, in the interest of justice, the witness of the complainant be recalled for his re-examination, the purpose of which was to prove the documents which were tendered before the Court, but had not been marked and exhibited. The learned Magistrate rejected the applications primarily on the ground that such a prayer was made at the belated stage, going by the time gap between the date of examination of the witness before him and the date on which prayer for his recall - was made. The learned Magistrate rejected the applications primarily on the ground that such a prayer was made at the belated stage, going by the time gap between the date of examination of the witness before him and the date on which prayer for his recall - was made. The learned Magistrate was also of the view that, since only the copies of the documents had been tendered and not the originals, they had rightly not been marked and exhibited; and therefore, there was no' inadvertent failure' to have the documents marked and exhibited. The substance of the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is that, the complainant was well aware that these documents were not being marked and exhibited, but had kept silent and at a much belated stage. made an application for recall of his witness. 4. The complainant approached the Court of Sessions by filing two separate revisions applications, challenging the orders passed by the Magistrate refusing to grant an opportunity to recall the witness under the provisions of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court of Sessions allowed the revision applications by setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate and granting permission to the complainant to recall his witness viz Ravindra Desle. 5. The accused being aggrieved thereby, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions, challenging the common order passed by the Court of Sessions. 6. Mr. Warmaa, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that Revision Applications before the Sessions Court were not maintainable at all. According to him, the order impugned was purely an interlocutory order and therefore, the Revision of the said order was not maintainable. He also submitted that, on merits, the order passed by the Magistrate was proper and legal and that, there was no reason for the complainant to have kept quiet for a long period and then to have made applications for recalling of his witness. 7. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 - complainant submitted that, the order passed by the Magistrate affected valuable rights of the complainant and therefore such order could not have been termed as an interlocutory order. He also submitted that the documents in question have already been produced before the Magistrate and therefore, the complainant ought to be given an opportunity to prove the documents in accordance with the law. He also submitted that the documents in question have already been produced before the Magistrate and therefore, the complainant ought to be given an opportunity to prove the documents in accordance with the law. He submitted that, inadvertence in not taking steps for getting the documents proved in accordance with law earlier, if any, should be excused, and recall of the complainant's witness should be allowed in order to ensure that the relevant evidence is brought before the Court. 8. I have carefully considered the matter. 9. I do not wish to go into a deeper discussion as to whether the orders passed by the Magistrate were interlocutory and that therefore, the revision applications filed before the Court of Sessions were not maintainable, as, in the ultimate analysis, I find that the impugned orders do not need any interference. 10. The main objection of Mr. Wannaa, the learned counsel for the accused to the recall of the witness is that, the documents in question are copies and that, no explanation as to why the originals were not produced at that time itself, is forthcoming. He also advanced certain contentions suggesting that this was not the case where secondary evidence of the documents could be permitted to be given. 11. In my opinion, these considerations are not relevant in the context of the question that arises. Certainly, even after the recall and even after further examination/re-examination of the complainant's witness, whether the documents are proved or not would be a question that would need determination by the Court. Similarly, whether a case for adducing secondary evidence has been made out, would also be a question which would require determination in accordance with law by the Magistrate. Whether what was being proved, was indeed secondary evidence would also need consideration by the Magistrate, even if secondary evidence is permitted to be given. Granting permission to recall the witness for further examination/re-examination cannot and does not amount to permission to prove the copies of documents, instead of the originals, does not even amount to admitting that they are such copies, as would be termed as 'secondary evidence.' 12. The question is only whether a further opportunity should be given to the complainant to prove the documents, which had been tendered by him to the Court, but, which were not proved, marked or exhibited. In my opinion, the answer has to be in affirmative. The question is only whether a further opportunity should be given to the complainant to prove the documents, which had been tendered by him to the Court, but, which were not proved, marked or exhibited. In my opinion, the answer has to be in affirmative. It need not be emphasized that no prejudice would be caused to the accused by this further examination/re-examination of the complainant's witness, except the delay that would arise on that count. 13. Thus, though the opportunity sought for needs to be given to the complainant, it would be appropriate to compensate the accused suitably for the delay that has resulted from the failure of the complainant to take steps to have the documents proved and exhibited. This can be done by awarding appropriate costs, to be paid to the accused by the complainant. 14. In the result, the Petitions are rejected. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the complainant shall pay the costs of Rs.3,000/ - (Rs. Three thousand only) in each of the two cases to the accused. The costs shall be paid directly to the accused within a period of TWO WEEKS today. The payment of costs to the accused shall be a condition precedent for the recall and re-examination of the complainant's witness. Petition dismissed.