JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.8.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Merta in sessions case No. 51/97 (1/97) State v. Sita Ram & Anr. 3. According to the petitioners, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner in the Court of learned Special Judge praying that the copies of the statements of witnesses who were examined by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. be supplied to the accused-petitioner before framing of the charge. The application was resisted by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the copies of witnesses whose statements were sought by the accused-petitioners were not intended to be examined as prosecution witnesses within the meaning of sub-sec. (5) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Special Judge after taking into consideration the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the prosecution to supply the copies of the statements of those witnesses to the accused-per-sons who were not intended to be examined as prosecution witnesses during the trial. Consequently, he rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1990 (2) 629 .1n that case an application had been filed by the accused persons under section 91 Cr.P.C. and the application was dismissed by the trial Judge on the ground that at the time of framing of the charge it was not necessary to take into consideration, documents other than those submitted by the Police along with challan. It was in the particular facts and circumstance of the case that the learned Single Judge observed : "The police was bound to place before the Court all the evidence and they having kept it back, it cannot be said that the challan was complete in accordance with Section 173 Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to decide whether to discharge accused under section 227 or to frame charge against him under section 228 Cr.P.C." 6. Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C. imposes a duty on the prosecution to supply the copies of all those persons who were examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witness during trial. It is conceivable that a large number of witnesses may be examined during investigation and the evidence of some of them may not be relevant or may not be useful to the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution may not deem it fit to examine them during the trial. In view of this Section 173(5)(b) Cr.P.C. does not appear to impose a duty on the prosecution to supply the copies of the statements of those persons whom the prosecution does not propose to examine as its witness. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Special Judge that under section 173(5) Cr.P.C. the copies of the statements of those persons whom the prosecution did not propose to examine as witnesses could not be supplied to the accused persons. 7. The fact that under section 173(5) Cr.P.0 the prosecution is not required to supply the copies of the statements of those persons who were not proposed to be examined as witnesses, does not mean that the accused is helpless in the matter. If the accused wants to obtain the copies of statements of any witness who was examined by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation but is not proposed to be examined as prosecution witness during trial, the accused may move an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. If an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. is moved and in the opinion of the trial Court the application is in respect of the documents or other things which are either necessary for the disposal of the inquiry or trial or the production of which is desirable for the purposes of inquiry or trial the Court may allow the petitioner and direct the prosecution to produce before it the documents mentioned in the application. 8. 8. In view of the above position of law this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed because the order passed by the learned Special Judge does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity and it is made clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the accused-petitioner for moving an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court if they are so advised and in case such an application is moved it shall be disposed of according to law.Order accordingly. *******