923-WP-3098-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3098 OF 2026 Hari Om Sai Stone Metal C/o. R. R. Patil Stone Crusher & Anr. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Pabari Mukesh Jayantilal, for the Petitioners. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Santosh Jadhav, PSI, Pairavi Officer, Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, present in Court. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 19th AUGUST 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Pabari, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Sonavane, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 16th April 2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier at Mazgaon, Mumbai below Exhibit-34 in C.C. No.721/SUM/2022 as also another order dated 16th April 2026 passed below Exhibit-33 in C.C. No.721/Sum/2022. The prayer in Application below Page 1 Sonali 923-WP-3098-2026.DOC Exhibit-33 is to recall and cross-examine the Complainant and in Application bearing Exhibit-34, prayer is for issuance of directions to the Complainant to file on record its audited balancesheet, ledger account of the accused with supporting vouchers, books of account, income tax record, bank account statement and petrol delivery slip. 3. It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the learned Advocate earlier appearing before the learned Trial Court has not conducted the cross-examination properly. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the Complainant i.e. P.W. 1 has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate of the Petitioners. In fact, it is required to be noted that the cross- examination of the P.W. 1 was conducted on 6th January 2024 and at the request of the Petitioners, cross-examination was deferred. The further cross-examination was conducted on 14th February 2024 and after conducting the cross-examination, the adjournment was sought to cross-examine P.W. 1 on the point of bills. In fact, it is represented that only the cross-examination will be conducted Page 2 Sonali 923-WP-3098-2026.DOC with respect to the bills. As the Complainant i.e. P.W.1 has shown readiness to produce the bills, the adjournment was granted. Thereafter, further cross-examination was conducted on 18th October 2024, on which date the P.W. 1 produced the bills and same were exhibited as Exhibits 30 and 31 and the P.W. 1 has been cross-examined. Thereafter, the cross-examination has been completed. Thus, it cannot be said that the cross-examination has not been properly done. Thus, it is not necessary to recall the P.W.1 for cross-examination. The contention raised by the Petitioners is contrary to the position on record. 5. As far as the Application seeking directions to the Complainant to produce on record audited balancesheet, ledger account of the accused with supporting vouchers, books of account, income tax record, bank account statement and petrol delivery slip etc., it is required to be noted that there are business transactions between the Petitioners i.e. accused and Respondent No.2 i.e. Complainant for a period of eight months and at the fag- end of each month, bills are given to all the customers and the said bills are produced by the Complainant. Page 3 Sonali 923-WP-3098-2026.DOC 6. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is pointed out in the impugned orders. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders under the discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.08.27 17:34:15 +0530