Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) BY his order dated 5th June, 1996, learned Special Judge, CBI Cases. Jodhpur disposed of application of the petitioners (accused persons) who had requested to summon certain documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before hearing the arguments for charge. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that documents can be summoned even before charge and cited a number of authorities. Learned counsel, for CBI urged that the petitioners are delaying the matter and all the documents which petitioners want to summon are not relevant for the purpose. It was further submitted that the revision petition was not maintainable. ( 3 ) M/s. Accurate Pipe and Plastics Co. had credit facility with State Bank of India, Bargaon. The goods was being hypothecated with the Bank and was kept in Customs warehouse. The goods could be released with the written permission of the Bank after payment was made. The allegation is that goods worth rupees sixty three lacs was released without any authority of the Bank. Bank officers and the Directors of the Company were challenged. ( 4 ) LEARNED lower Court found that the petitioners wanted to summon the following documents : Learned Special Judge, CBI passed the impugned order in the following terms :so far as maintainability of revision petition is concerned, the argument is that in view of Section 22 of Prevention of Corruption Act it is not maintainable but this argument is not tenable. The Section does not bar revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. What it lays down in sub-Section (d) is that when revision is filed, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings (a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies. ( 5 ) LEARNED Special Judge after hearing parties and after examination of record, came to the conclusion that - (i) statements under Section 161, Cr. ( 5 ) LEARNED Special Judge after hearing parties and after examination of record, came to the conclusion that - (i) statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , (ii) documents maintained at serial No. 72, 73, 74, 62, 26 in the list of prosecution, (iii) original documents mentioned in the list, (iv) pledge agreement may be summoned but it refused to summon (i) record of civil suits field by Bank and documents in those civil suits, (ii) preliminary enquiry report, (iii) documents relating to the departmental enquiry relating to JP Sharma. ( 6 ) THERE cannot be two opinions about the legal position. Documents can be summoned even at the stage before the charges are framed. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case when deep investigation was done it is not necessary to summon the preliminary enquiry report, or record of the civil suits/documents produced therein, as the petitioners themselves being defendants in civil suits are aware of such proceedings and are having record of civil suits. They can use their own copies at the time of argument before charge and submit before the learned Special Judge. Documents relating to enquiry against Shri JP Sharma was not considered necessary to be summoned by the learned Special Judge and it so done rightly. ( 7 ) I do not find any cogent reasons to interfere in the order of learned Special Judge and the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.