An application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must be filed at an appropriate stage of the trial and must demonstrate the necessity and desirability of the documents sought to be summoned.

1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the Order dated 4.2.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 4.2.2015, has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court') vide Order dated 12.2.2015 as being not maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are pending against the petitioner in the Trial Court. The prosecution evidence was completed on 29.10.2013 and, thereafter, on 18.1.2014, the statements of the accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 27.6.2014, the opportunity of producing defence was closed by the Trial Court and the matter was fixed for final heating.

3. On 13.11.2014, final arguments of the parties concerned were heard by the Trial Court and the matter was fixed for decision on 19.11.2014, however, a day prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court i.e. 18.11.2014, Counsel for the petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and prayed that the original death certificate of the grandfather of the complainant and the bank statement of the complainant be summoned. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties, has rejected the said application while observing that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before the Court that how the documents sought to be summoned by him are necessary and desirable for the trial of the case. The Trial Court has also observed that the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is highly belated as the recording of prosecution evidence was completed on 29.10.2013 and, thereafter, the statements of accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.1.2014. The matter was finally heard by the Trial Court on 13.11.2014 and it was fixed for decision on 19.11.2014. The petitioner had moved the application on 18.11.2014, whereas he had all the opportunity to move the said application after completion of the prosecution evidence. After observing this, the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner has every right to move application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. It is also argued that the trial against the petitioner has not been concluded and, therefore, the Trial Court was grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. treating it as belated. It is also argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that before the Trial Court, the petitioner had demonstrated the necessity and desirability of the documents sought to be summoned but the Trial Court has not appreciated the same in correct perspective.

5. In support of the above arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 . He has also placed reliance on a decision of Gauhati High Court rendered in Criminal Revision Petition No. 552/2012 titled as Guwhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee v. Sri Suresh Sikaria , as also the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4130/2011 and Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19202/2011 dated 13.12.2011 titled as Suresh Kumar Pathrella v. Central Bureau of Investigation . Learned Counsel of the petitioner has further placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court rendered in Rishi Kesh Singh & Ors. v. The State, reported in 1970 Cr.L.J.