1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against an order dated 25th September, 09, passed in Criminal Revision No. 277/09 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior setting aside thereby the order dated 06th August, 09, passed in Criminal Case No. 2480/08 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, permitting the revisionist to file the documents alongwith the application under section 91 of CrPC. dated 25th November 2008 filed in the trial at the stage of defence evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the revisional Court to be set aside restoring the order passed by the trial Magistrate.

2. The facts, in short, just for the decision of this petition are that on a private criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1stating that the accused for want of illegal demand of dowry, caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, the Magistrate issued the directions for registration of the FIR for commission of offence under sections 498A and 506B of IPC. against accused-petitioner, i.e. husband and his father-in-law, sister-in-law, uncle-in-law, aunt-in-law. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and trial is at the defence stage.

3. The prosecution filed the application under section 311 of CrPC, read with section 91, dated 08th September, 08 and further application on 25th November 08. The trial Magistrate by the order dated 06th August, 09 disallowed the application under section 91 of CrPC and did not take the documents on record. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 preferred the revision under section 391 of CrPC, which was allowed by the impugned order and the order of the trial Magistrate was set aside.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the revisional Court by allowing the revision petition, directed the trial Magistrate to take the documents filed with the application under section 91 of CrPC at the stage of defence which amount to abuse of the process of law and is affecting the valuable rights of the accused for speedy trial. The revisional Court did not consider the provisions of section 91 of the Code in proper way, It is contended that the alleged documents were in possession of the complainant, but no cogent reasons were shown for not production of the documents at appropriate stage, i.e. prosecution evidence stage. It is contended that the application under section 91 of CrPC was filed by the complainant with an ulterior motive to damage the interests of the accused. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of the revisional Court to direct the trial Magistrate to take the alleged photographs on record be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/State opposed the contention of the petitioner and supported the impugned order of the learned revisional Court. They contended that the alleged documents are the photographs of the marriage of the complainant and accused petitioner, which clearly show the exchange of gifts by the bridesmaid to the bridegroom. These photographs were made available to the Investigation Officer but he declined to incorporate the documents with charge-sheet filed before the trial Magistrate. It is submitted that the defence has a full opportunity to rebut the evidence. This evidence is to be valued with other evidence at the time of judgment. Therefore, it was requested to maintain the order of the revisional Court and dismiss the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the revisional Court and of trial Magistrate vis-a-vis the documents filed by the petitioner along with petition.

7. In the case of Om Prakash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi (AIR 2000 SC 2335) the Hon'ble apex Court held :-

"While considering the application for summoning and production of document