G.D. Saxena, J.

1. This Revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the Petitioners/accused is directed against an order dated 15th December 2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 105/2008 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena, dismissing thereby an application filed by the accused under Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure for providing the copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer of Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena in Crime No. 26/2008 for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2. The facts, in short, are that complainant Vijay Singh lodged a report at P.S., to the effect that on 28th September 2009 at about 7 a.m. in the morning while he was returning back he was informed by the neighbours that by the side of garden of Munna Gusai, at Village Sabalgarh, dead-body of one namely, Nora @ Bhagawan Singh Khatik was found lying under suspicious circumstances. It is alleged that a just day before, on 27th September 2008, the deceased went to attend the marriage function of daughter of Sannu Kushawah. On the report lodged by the complainant which was registered on Marg Intimation report, inquiry was carried out. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Kakaur of Community Health Center, Sabalgarh. The viscera was preserved. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners and other accused person.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Jeetu, Kammoda, Jamnabai, Kuldeep, Balle, Rajoli, Rakesh and Munna were recorded on 29th January 2008, just after two days of the incident by the Investigating Officer. Then after two months of the incident, before filing charge-sheet, again additional statements of these witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the statements recorded on 29th January 2008 were not filed with the charge sheet nor copies thereof were supplied by the Investigating Officer. It is argued that the statements recorded on 29th January 2008 were essential for just and fair decision of the case and therefore they were to be filled before the trial Judge to substantial the defence of the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Judge is against law and principles of natural justice. It is requested that by allowing the revision petition, the trial court be directed that the statements of the prosecution witnesses dated 29th & 30th January 2008 be produced before the trial court and the copies of those statements as mentioned above be supplied to the Petitioners.

4. The learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer of the accused/Petitioners and submitted that No. illegality or irregularity is committed while rejecting the application of the Petitioners under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No. 218/2008 registered by Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena and the law applicable to the case.

6. In the case before this Court, though it has been alleged in the said application by the Petitioners/accused that the statements in question are necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, the learned trial Judge at the time of examination of the said application, did not find sufficient materials on which an order under Section 91 could be made. Hence, the question that remains to be answered by this Court is that whether the prosecution was obliged to submit the same alongwith the charge-sheet before the court and supply copies thereof to the Petitioners-accused.

7. At this juncture, it would be useful to reproduce Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as is under:

91. Summons to produce document or other thing-(1) Whenever any court or