ORDER

Shrivastava, J. -- 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, (PC Act) Bhind in Case No. 02/2019 SST, whereby the application filed under section 91 of CrPC preferred by the petitioner has been partly rejected.

2. The facts of the present case pertain to demand of bribe by the petitioner from complainant Deshraj Singh Tomar for issuing character certificate, in regard to which Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2018 is pending before First Additional Sessions Court and Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Bhind.

3. During the course of trial, after examination of accused under section 313 of CrPC, an application under section 91, CrPC, was filed by the petitioner for summoning/production of some crucial documents before the trial Court, which are in possession of the prosecution. The trial Court partly allowed the application and directed for summoning of the documents mentioned in paras 1 to 5 of the application, but declined to summon the document mentioned in para 6 of the application, whereby the petitioner wanted to get summoned the copy of circulars/rules/legal provisions, in terms whereof the prosecution has deleted and destroyed the original evidence, i.e., alleged conversation recorded in voice recorder during the pendency of the trial.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the document sought to be summoned is necessary for just decision of the case. For ensuring the fairest opportunity of fair trial it is necessary to call/summon the original evidence and in absence of originals the copies cannot be relied and trusted. The prosecution has destroyed the original evidence, i.e., the original conversation recorded in voice recorder with malicious intention.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under section 91 of CrPC, at any stage any document may be called, therefore, in such situation refusal to exercise the jurisdiction under section 91 of CrPC is an error committed by the trial Court. Hence, prayed to allow the instant petition under section 482 of CrPC.

6. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. It is undisputed that the trial is at advance stage. Under section 91 of CrPC any Court may summon any document on its own or on prayer of officer incharge of the police station. For ready reference, section 91 of CrPC is reproduced below :

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing. (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”

The aforesaid provision says, “Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document...........”. That means, it is th