1. - The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 28.10.1995 passed in Criminal Sessions Case No. 180/93, by which the application filed by the petitioner dated 22nd March, 1995 for supply of certain documents and statements filed with the charge-sheet was rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.D. Kalla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioners wanted the supply of following documents:

(1) photo stat copies of the letters, which were produced by the petitioners during investigation (though, the originals are with them) to show that the letters are not after-thought.

(2) the letters written to Forensic Science Laboratory for removing the defects pointed out by the laboratory.

(3) the letters written to the witnesses by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gulabpura in case of non-turning of the witnesses despite their service.

(4) the statements recorded under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code during inquiry of the witnesses Madanlal, Kanchan Bai, Gyan Mal, Anu Devi, Rajendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code, these documents are relevant for the purpose of framing charge against the accused-persons. As per his argument, hearing also includes consideration of document, which is to be filed or to be relied by the accused petitioners. Therefore, to convince the learned trial Court that no charge could be framed against them, the summoning of the above documents under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of framing charge is necessary. Therefore, the petition be allowed and the prosecution be directed to produce the above mentioned documents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention:

(1) Mangi Lal v. State (S.B. Cri. Misc. Pet. No. 262/96, decided on 19.1.1998)

(2) Davendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1990 (2) P. 629

(3) Pradeep and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan XI-1994 (3) Crimes P. 858

6. The petitioners are facing trial under Sections 498 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code before the trial Court. In the Sessions Case when the accused appears before the Court in pursuance of the commitment of the case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall upon his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. under Section 227, the accused is to be discharged, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Sessions Judge would be within his power to consider the materials till the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227.

7. It has been held in State of M.P. v. S.B. Joshi, reported in AIR 2000 SC P. 2583 , as under:

"In the instant case the High Court by its order in earlier revision petition directed the trial Court that the documents made available by the accused during the investigation be produced and they be taken into consideration by the Court while framing charges. The said order became final, it having not been challenged further. In this situation the parties and the trial Court were bound and governed by the said direction. Its failure to follow the directions resulted in framing charges against the respondent-accused ignoring the documents, which on their face value supported the respondent. Consequently the order framing charge against accused would be liable to be set aside."
In this view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the documents, which the petitioners wanted to get produced from the prosecution (except so called letters written