JUDGMENT :

(Kuldeep Mathur, J.) :

The instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial court’), rejecting the application filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 91 of Cr. P.C. for summoning the documents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections 7 , 13(1)(2) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before learned trial court. The trial court has framed the charges and the case is pending before trial court for recording the prosecution evidence. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were members of a team which visited Sardarshahar for inspection of Bhanwarlal Dungar Ayurveda Vishwa Bharti College. The inspecting team demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- as illegal gratification for giving a favourable report to the college. On receiving complaints, on 17.04.2017, competent police officials laid a trap and accused-petitioners were arrested with illegal gratification.

3. By way of filing an application before learned trial court under Section 91 Cr. P.C., the accused-petitioners prayed for summoning the documents relating to certain communication between Dr. Bhanwar Lal Dungar, Ayurvedic College, Sardarshahar and Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short, ‘CCIM’) along with report of the visitation team sent to CCIM online. The documents relating to certain photography and videography of the college on 17.04.2017 and 18.04.2017 were also demanded as according to accused- petitioners, they are relevant for the case being tried against them.

4. Learned trial court vide impugned order 16.07.2022 was pleased to reject the application filed under Section 91 CrPC on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners is of demanding illegal gratification. As per the trial court, the question to be tried is not as to whether institution/college is being run contrary to the applicable rules or not. The trial court in its impugned order dated 16.07.2022 also noticed that the documents prayed to be summoned pertains to the defence of the accused and therefore, even if they are relevant in connection with particular witness they should be brought on record at an appropriate stage and this cannot be a reason for summoning the documents at this stage.

5. Challenging the validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 16.07.2022, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court committed an error in not appreciating the fact that when a witness gives evidence in the Court and thereafter subjected to cross examination by defence, that itself is a defence of the accused, which is put to the witness to elicit his comments or explanations, if any, in relation to his statement previously recorded i.e. u/Sec. 161 CrPC and in connection with the documents in regard to which, the said witness is privy or is aware in connection with the defence as put across during cross examination. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the reasoning given under the impugned order is accepted and treated to be correct, then defence will not be in position to exhibit or bring on record the document relevant being his defence at the stage of post Sec. 313 CrPC, whereupon these documents cannot be exhibited unless the said witnesses are recalled and confronted with the same.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the applica