( 1 ) THE petitioner who is facing trial under Section 302/307/212/201 read with Section 120b and 34 Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25/27 of the Arms Act has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "code" only) challenging the orders dated 12. 1. 2001 passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting his application under Section 91 of the Code.

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the records.

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner vide his application dated 6/12/2000 requested the Trial Court to require the I. O. to produce in Court the original alongwith a copy of the inspection form/report No. 582 dated 7. 11. 1999 submitted by Public witness Subhash Chander SI of Crime Team in regard to the inspection of the Arms/ammunition and other articles found at the place of occurrence, produce in the Court a pistol as well as revolver that were found lying at the spot as mentioned in the PCR form dated 7. 11. 1999 and the original PCR record relating to the receipt/sending of the PCR calls made on 7. 11. 1999 from Police Headquarters to DCP North west/ps Model Town in regard to the incident. The prosecution opposed this request mainly on the ground that all those documents on which the prosecution was relying had already been supplied to the accused and as such the application was merely with a view to delay the trial of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application holding that it was without any merit.

( 4 ) IT is true that according to Section 207 of the Code in any case where the proceedings have been instituted on a police report,the Magistrate is under an obligation to furnish free of cost and without any delay the copies of the documents enumerated in the said section. The prosecution is under no obligation to furnish the copies of those documents on which it does not rely for proving its case against an accused. However, Section 91 of the Code confers very wide powers on the Court for issuing summons for the production of any document or thing which appears to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Judgement State of Kerala Vs. Babu and Others, reported in 1999 IV AD SC 381 has argued that Section 91 was fully attracted in this case and the Trial Court ought to have issued orders thereunder to summon the documents mentioned in the petitioner s application.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that the prosecution could not be compelled to supply those documents to the petitioner which were not being relied upon by it and the Court was also not under any obligation to assist the petitioner in getting him documents which were required for defence purposes in asmuch as the case was still at the stage of framing charge only. Learned counsel for the State submits that at the appropriate stage when, the accused enters upon his defence, he may summon and use those documents which were required by him for meeting the prosecution case and as such the learner Trial Judge was fully justified in declining his request. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court Om Parkash Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2000 Crl. L. J. 3478.

( 6 ) SECTION 91 of the Code, upon which the petitioner relies for seeking the relief, reads as under:- summons to produce document or other thing (1)Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under t