handwriting expert through the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, and same were misplaced, and there is no possibility of tracing of the said documents, but respondent no.1 was having true copies thereof, and therefore, respondent no.1 sought permission to produce the same before the court by way of secondary evidence. Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent no.2 pointed out that the aspect of delay of 11 years has been dealt by the learned trial court in the impugned order and charge was framed in the year 2006, and thereafter the the matter was adjourned for most of the times for placing original documents which itself indicates that the prosecution has made efforts to trace out the said documents, and therefore, it is submitted by them, that there is no substance in the objection raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein, in that respect. Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent no.2 further submitted that the documents in question are important and vital documents, and therefore, they are required to be produced on record for fair trial and in the interest of justice. So also, it is submitted that the petitioner would get opportunity to cross examine at the time adducing said secondary evidence and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Besides, learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that the judicial pronouncement, cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has no bearing with the facts of the present case since facts and circumstances in the present case and facts and circumstances in the said case differ from each other. Accordingly, learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that the petition bears no substance and the same is devoid of merits and, therefore, same be rejected.
