The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Cri. M.P. No. 1940 of 2007 filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are the accused in a case of major offence of murder. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 910f the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon as many as five documents from the respondent.

3. It is relevant to refer to the averment in the petition filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the counter filed by the respondent.

4. The petitioners have contended in the aforesaid petition seeking to summon the case diary of the present case, case diary of the counter case, general diary of the present case, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the state of one Geja Thomas, the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the case sheet of A-2, A-3, A-4 and one Parimala that if the aforesaid records are kept in the custody of the respondent police, there is every chance for alteration and manipulation of the records. The custody of the aforesaid documents is just and necessary for trial, it has been further contended by the petitioners in the petition filed by them.

5. In the counter, the respondent police has contended that the petitioner has been filed at a belated stage. The case of murder which was committed in the year 2006 is still pending disposal. The present petition was filed after examination of the material witnesses. The vexatious petition has been filed just to delay the criminal proceedings with a view to defeat the ends of justice. The petitioners are not entitled to summon the case diaries of the present case and the counter case and the general diary of the present case. As far as the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Executive Magistrate is concerned, the petitioners would have been supplied with those documents by the Executive Magistrate. As far as the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the wound certificate and case sheet of A-2, A-3, A-4 and Parimala, the same have already been supplied even during the year 2003 under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the committal Court. Therefore, the respondent would contend that the petition is not sustainable.

6. The Trial Court, having observed that the petitioners have not put forth any justifiable reason to satisfy the Court to summon those documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, chose to dismiss the petition filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners cannot be directed to disclose the defence set up by them in the petitioner filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only during the course of pendency of trial, the petitioners have filed the petition under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Further, the case diary relating to the counter case, the proceedings initiated earlier by the Executive Magistrate under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accident register copy of the deceased accused and the wound certificate and case sheet of A-2, A-3, A-4 and Parimala are very much relevant for the purpose of strengthening the case of the defence. The petitioners should be given an opportunity to contradict the versions of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution with that of their statements given before the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court has totally ignored the plea of the petitioners and erred in dismissing the petition depriving the right of the petitioners to defend them properly with the documents available with the respondent.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would vehemently submit that the trial is pending for quite a