1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.V. Thomas for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Nikhil Deshpande with learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Jaiswal for the respondent no.1. Perused the application, order thereon, and all other annexures.

2. In the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioner-complainant had completed and closed her evidence, but, therefore filed applications [Exhs.100 and 101] seeking leave to file new documents and praying for permission to prove those. 3. It is alleged in these applications that certain documents were recently found, as those were misplaced/lost, and were relevant and vital for the case and hence production thereof and leave to prove the same be granted.

4. Applications were rejected by the Trial Court, holding that documents now sought to be produced and proved attempted to couch a plea totally different from one contained in the deposition of the complainant, and hence present petition is filed by the complainant.

5. Petition is opposed by the accused by urging that the petitioner has not and cannot overcome the facts and reasons which have weighed before Trial Court.

6. In the oral submissions-in-reply, learned Advocate for petitioner admits the factual position reflected in the impugned order, however, in rejoinder, attempts to justify the challenge, urging that petitioner's admission, which is the foundation of impugned order, was a mistaken act which the petitioner wants to mend by applications [Exhs. 100 and 101].

7. In order to test the submissions, this Court has once again perused the impugned order. It is seen that the admission, subject-matter, which is referred to in the order under challenge reads as follows:- .

4. .....However, on going through the cross-examination of complainant himself which is recorded below Exh.18 by the Court on 20.2.2003, complainant has stated on oath in cross-examination that the amount was given by her to the accused in cash. The said amount consists of her own amount and the amount of his friend. She further admits that whenever he used to lent any amount to anyone, he used to take the receipt. In this transaction also, she has taken the receipt of amount. However, she has not filed these receipts in this case because accused has taken back all receipts from her when she gave him a cheque on which basis this complaint is filed.

5. Therefore, as per the statement of complainant recorded on oath during evidence, the alleged receipts which complainant want to produce with list Exh.102 were taken away by the accused from her when the accused has drawn a disputed cheque of this case. Then, question arises after 2002, how these receipts came in possession of the complainant.. [While quoting, the sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reference]. [quoted from page nos. l8 and 19 of the Writ Petition paper-book].

8. It is nowhere alleged that Trial Court has committed any error in accurately recording the deposition of the complainant or in appreciation of the admission of the complainant as recorded and referred to in impugned order.

9. It is seen from averments contained in Exhs.100 and 101 that those read as follows:-

The complainant is this day filing certain original acknowledgmentscum- receipts and the income return issued by the accused from time to time to the complainant upon the hand loan made by the complainant. It is submitted that the said documents have been traded out by the complainant recently as she is filing the same today without wasting any time.

The complainant respectfully submits that the said acknowledgmentscum- receipts and Income Tax Return are vital important and relevant for the fair adjudication of the present proceeding.

It is well settled that the function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who amongst the parties performed better.. [While quoting, the sub-paras are made for convenience]. [quote