1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner made a complaint against the respondents and examined witnesses.
2. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Magistrate framed charges against the respondents under sections 342 and ' 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In the case, the respondents were examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. On the 7th June 1969, all that date, the petitioner prayed for the first time for examination of one S. I., Bimal Krishna Sarkar and for production of stamp papers from the custody of the respondents. This prayer was rejected by the learned. Magistrate: A revisional application against the Magistrate's order was rejected -by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bakerganj. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the High Court in revision', but without any success. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the Order of the High Court.
3. Mr: Abdur. Rahman Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced from the custody of the respondents are necessary to substantiate the petitioner's contention that respondents fraudulently obtained his thumb-impression on certain blank papers and of which was alleged to have been converted into a deed of agreement on the basis of which the respondents filed a money suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.
4. 62,828. The Courts below were of the view that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for the criminal case against the respondents as there was no charge against them for forgery. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's prayer for production of documents was refused.
5. This was a discretionary matter of the Courts, and it cannot be said that the discretion, in. The absence of a charge for forgery, was wrongly exercised. Nor the Courts' refusal to secure production of the alleged documents caused any prejudice, because the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to question the genuineness of these documents in the money suit awaiting petition is dismissed.