Judgment · Supreme Court · 2026

919&920.WP-278-2026.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 919 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 277 OF 2026 AND920 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2026MS PANDE IRON TRADING COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER PANKAJ TRILOKCHAND PANDE VERSUSNASIRUDDIN MOHAMADALI LAKHANI AND ANOTHER*****Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. P. Bhandari h/f Mr. R.P. TotalaAddl. PP for the Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde***** CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 1st APRIL 2026 PER COURT :1.The Petitioner has filed the petition praying for quashingand setting aside the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by thelearned Trial Court below Exhibit-201 in SCC No. 3101/2014,whereby the Court allowed the application filed by the accusedunder Section 294 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce certaindocuments and to read them in evidence. 2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that theevidence of the accused was already closed by an order passedbelow Exhibit-1. The said order was challenged by the accusedbefore the Sessions Court, which permitted the accused to lead[1] 919&920.WP-278-2026.odtevidence of witnesses. However, no further documents wereproduced on record for a considerable period of time. Now, whenthe witnesses’ evidence as per the directions of the SessionsCourt is already over, the present application has been filed. Theaccused cannot be permitted to adduce evidence beyond whatwas permitted by the learned Sessions Court. Moreover, thegenuineness of the documents is doubtful and they appear to beforged. The said documents cannot be treated as publicdocuments. They have been produced at a belated stage withoutany satisfactory explanation for not producing them earlier. Theapplication was wrongly allowed by the learned Trial Court, andthe impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and setaside. 3.I have gone through the order dated 31.01.2026 passed bythe learned JMFC, Court No.1, Aurangabad. I have also examinedthe Revisional Order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the AdhocAdditional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad, whereby the Petitionerwas permitted to lead evidence and examine witnesses indefense. I have further considered the application filed underSection 294 Cr.P.C. by the Applicant. A perusal of the aforesaidrecord shows that the present trial has been expedited by theorders of the High Court. The criminal case arises out of acomplaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct. The record indicates that the accused have consistentlymaintained from the inception that no transaction, as alleged inthe complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, ever took place. While there exists a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.[2] 919&920.WP-278-2026.odtAct against the accused regarding the transaction, the accused isentitled to rebut such presumption. It is in exercise of this rightthat the accused appears to have sought information from theDeputy Regional Transport Office, Jalna, pertaining to the vehiclenumber allegedly used by the Complainant for delivery of goods. The information furnished by the RTO, Jalna, indicates that thealleged vehicles are not registered with that office. Such materialconstitutes a defense available to the accused to substantiate theinitial stand that no transaction ever took place. Thecomplainant/Petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence toprove the contrary that the vehicles are registered.4.The learned trial Court has considered the fact that thepresent case has been expedited by the orders of the High Courtand has also noted that no new plea is being taken by theaccused. The documents sought to be relied upon by the accusedare only intended to substantiate the plea which has existed rightfrom the inception of the complaint filed by the Complainant. Even though there are directions to complete the proceedingswithin a time-bound period, the application filed under Section294 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner to admit documents forming part ofthe public record cannot be said to have been filed merely withan intention to protract the trial. The application under Section294 Cr.P.C. was filed to produce documents obtained from theDeputy RTO Office, Jalna, on record. There is a statutorypresumption regarding documents of public record that suchdocuments may be admitted without formal proof. Admission ofsuch documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. would facilitate[3] 919&920.WP-278-2026.odtexpeditious disposal of the case, thereby aiding the Court incomplying with the directions of the High Court. The evidentiaryvalue of such documents and its relevance can be evaluated bythe trial Court at the time of delivering the judgment. I thereforefind no error committed by the learned Trial Court in allowing theapplication filed under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner has thusfailed to make out any case for interference by this Court underits extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisoryjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. TheWrit Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. 5.Needless to mention that the observations regarding theadmissibility of the documents sought to be produced on recordthrough the application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. filed by thePetitioner are prima facie in nature and made only for thepurpose of deciding the present Writ Petitions. Theseobservations shall not influence the trial Court while deciding thetrial on its merits. [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] JUDGENajeeb..[4]