Criminal Misc.No.30055 of 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: December 12, 2011 Ram Asra .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.49 dated 10.4.2006 under sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. He filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for directing the State for producing the original documents Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 through Harish Kant Verma PW3 as previously Annexure 1, i.e., receipt dated 17.11.2005 was Criminal Misc.No.30055 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : produced before the court of Shri B.P.Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division) by PW-1, who was a plaintiff in a suit titled Harish Kant Verma and others Vs. Kishori Lal. Harish Kant PW-3 has produced the original receipts, which were placed on the judicial file. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class noticed this fact and accordingly disposed of the application on 14.12.2010. The order is as under:- “In pursuance to the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.Harish Kang PW3 has produced the original receipts which have been placed on the judicial file. He is also produced the other documents as per the list of witnesses annexed to the reply to the application. In view of the fact that the documents sought to be produced as per the application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. has been produced, the application stands disposed off. Now the case is adjourned to 12.01.2011 for cross examination of PW-3.” Still, the petitioner-accused assailed this order by filing a revision before Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The challan in this case was filed on 20.12.2006. Charges were framed on 8.3.2007. The prosecution is in the process of leading its evidence. The application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner-accused on 22.11.2010. In response, the witness has produced the Criminal Misc.No.30055 of 2011 (O&M) : 3 : original receipts, besides producing other documents. The application was accordingly disposed of. The revision is dismissed by the court on the ground that the impugned order is an interlocutory order. The court while dismissing the revision has also observed that if the witness has made some misrepresentation, then the petitioner-accused would have ample opportunity to bring it to the notice of the trial court. The petitioner has now filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge these orders. I am unable to comprehend the cause, which, the petitioner has raised in the present petition. The application filed by the petitioner, who is an accused facing prosecution, was taken into consideration and disposed of on the ground that the documents have been produced. Whether such a prayer was maintainable on behalf of the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was a question which was not considered by the trial court or by the revisional court. Section 91 Cr.P.C. gives a power to the court or any officer in charge of a police station to a issue summons, or 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 time and place stated in the summons or the order. Whether the accused would have a right to seek production of any document during the course of trial Criminal Misc.No.30055 of 2011 (O&M) : 4 : would be, in my view, a debatable issue. If any document is essential for the purpose of defence, that can very well be sought and asked for while cross-examining the relevant witness. Section 91 Cr.P.C. primarily gives the power to the police at the stage of investigation or to the court at the trial stage to direct production of any document or a thing which is considered necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial. This aspect perhaps has not been considered by the court while entertaining the pleas raised by the petitioner. The submission that the document, which was the actual receipt, has not been produced and that the witness has misled the court would have to be pleaded and seen by the trial court and certainly was not a cause for the petitioner to agitate in a revision. The right of the accused to seek production of such document will have to be pleaded by him before the trial Court and not in the manner he is seeking the production thereof. The present petition and the whole cause espoused by the petitioner apparently is misconceived. There is no cause made out to interfere in the orders. The petition is accordingly dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE