ORDER: The above criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/ accused against the order passed by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in an application filed by the petitioner under Sec.91 of Crl.P.C. to summon the documents. 2. The petitioner has categorically stated in his petition before the trial Court to summon the below mentioned documents: "(a) Entire file S4/108/99 Bonds available with Additional Commissioner (Bonds) Customs Department, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakam, Chennai-600 027 - with Bill of Entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999, Original and duplicate both on the covering letter under Sec. 139 of Crl.P.C. (b) The clearance particulars of voice over I.P., P.C. cord Bond No. 8768, dated 25.8.1999. Bill of Entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999 AWB/Bill of lading No. and date: MAWB: 618-5942553 MAWB: 36093326/11.8.1999". These particulars are available with the Deputy Manager, International Airport Authority of India, Air Cargo Complex (Imports), Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027." 3. It is stated by the petitioner in his petition that the said documents are necessary to put forth his case and to prove his innocence. 4. The respondent/CBI has filed counter before the Court below stating that one Kathiresan, DSP was examined as P.W. 6 and N.V. Udayakumar, Assistant Commissioner (bonds) was examined as P.W. 7 and both the witnesses were not connected with the nature of documents mentioned in the said petition. It is also averred in the counter that the reason and purpose for production of the said documents were not mentioned in the petition. 5. After affording opportunity to both sides, the learned trial Judge held that no reason or purposes has been mentioned by the petitioner as to why he requires the production of documents detailed in the petition. Mere statement that the documents are necessary for establishing the innocence of the accused would not be sufficient. It is also mentioned in the order that P.W.6 is an officer who had participated in the trap proceedings conducted by the prosecution and therefore he would not have any knowledge about the nature of the documents mentioned in the petition. P.W.7, Assistant Commissioner, Administration (Bonds and Customs), Chennai also would not have any personal knowledge about the nature of the documents stated in the petition. P.W.7, Assistant Commissioner, Administration (Bonds and Customs), Chennai also would not have any personal knowledge about the nature of the documents stated in the petition. It is further mentioned in the order that with regard to file S4/108/99 (bonds) is concerned, a part of the records was marked as Ex.P-9 series consisting of pages 1 to 69 that similarly bill of entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999 marked as Ex.P-3 and the remaining part of the documents in both the items are not necessary. Ultimately, the learned Special Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Asokan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the documents already marked namely Exs.P-9 and P-3 are sufficient for the purpose of the case. Indeed, the entire documents mentioned in both the items are required to disprove the charges against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further argued that the said documents are absolutely necessary to put forth the case of the petitioner/accused that the consignment in dispute has already been cleared and there was no necessity for the bond to be executed on 29.8.1999 as alleged by the prosecution. The learned senior counsel further argued that while cross-examining P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, the petitioner has raised the said defence as such the averment that the petitioner has not spelt out the reason as to how the said documents are relevant for the case is not correct. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Ranganathan appearing for the respondent/ CBI submitted that under Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. whenever the Court considers it necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial may issue summons for production of the documents. Thus, in order to make the provisions of Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C., applicable, the documents must be considered to be necessary or desirable which must be judicially determined by the Court. According to the learned Standing Counsel for respondent, the Court below has found that the documents are unnecessary, hence the petition was rightly dismissed. Thus, in order to make the provisions of Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C., applicable, the documents must be considered to be necessary or desirable which must be judicially determined by the Court. According to the learned Standing Counsel for respondent, the Court below has found that the documents are unnecessary, hence the petition was rightly dismissed. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. relied upon the decision in Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi, 2000 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1014, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held in para 6 that, "The powers conferred under Sec. 91 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the Court or any officer in charge of a police station concerned to enforce and to ensure the production of any document or other things "necessary or desirable" for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possession of such material. The language of Sec.91 would, no doubt, indicate the width of the powers to be unlimited but the in built limitation inherent therein takes its colour and shape from the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfil the task or achieve the object. The question, at the present stage of the proceedings before the trial Court would be to address itself to find whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. If the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to even look into the materials so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise of valuable judicial/public time. It is trite law that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be insisted upon at the stage where the consideration is to be confined to find out a prima facie case and decide whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage of framing the charges and making the accused to stand trial for the same. This Court has already cautioned against undertaking a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence or collecting materials, as if during the course or after trial vide: Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, A.I.R. 1979 S. C. 366. Ultimately, this would always depend upon the facts of each case and it would be difficult to lay down a rule of universal application and for all times. The fact that in one case the Court thought fit to exercise such powers is no compelling circumstance to do so in all and every case before it, as a matter of course and for the mere asking. The Court concerned must be allowed a large latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion and unless in a given case the Court was found to have conducted itself in so demonstraly an unreasonable manner unbecoming of a judicial authority, the Court superior to that Court cannot intervene very lightly or in a routine fashion to interpose or impose itself even at that stage. The reason being at that stage, the question is one of mere proprieties involved in the exercise of judicial discretion by the Court and not of any rights concretized in favour of the accused.“ In the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the accused filed an application for summoning and production of documents to show that he was not guilty. The said application was made during the proceedings of discharge of the accused. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the documents were not of such a nature which would show that the prosecution case was improper or unworthy and the accused was merely attempting to delay the proceedings. The High Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court. The Honourable Supreme Court confirmed the order of the courts below dismissing the application of the accused filed during the proceedings for discharge of the accused and held that the standard of proof required at the final stage is not required before taking a decision to frame the charge or to discharge the accused. Ultimately, the Honourable Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as well as the High Court. But, so far as the present case is concerned, the petition to summon the documents was filed at the stage of trial. Ultimately, the Honourable Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as well as the High Court. But, so far as the present case is concerned, the petition to summon the documents was filed at the stage of trial. Hence, the decision cited supra will not be applicable to the instant case. 8. Now we look into the relevant provisions of Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. ”Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. - 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 Secs. 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 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." 9. No doubt Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. confers a wide discretion on the Court to order production of documents, but, the discretion has to be exercised judicially. The power can be exercised by the Court at any stage at the request of any party including the accused, but can be done only when the Court, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, finds that the production of the document or thing called for is necessary or desirable in the interest of justice and have some relation to or connection with the subject matter of trial. The Court shall satisfy itself whether the document or thing is necessary for a trial even though the application filed by the party does not disclose the grounds as to why production of the same is necessary. 10. The petitioner herein has filed a petition under Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. before the trial Court at the stage of cross examination of P.W.6 and P.W.7 was deferred. In the said petition, it is averred that the documents sought for were necessary to put forth the case of the accused and prove his innocence and further to confront with the prosecution witnesses 6 and 7 and no prejudice would be caused if the documents are summoned and on the other hand, it would cause great hardship if they are not summoned. 11. The respondent/CBI has averred in its counter that P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are not connected with the nature of the documents required by the petitioner and the reason and purpose for production of the documents are not mentioned in the petition. 12. It is evident from the counter of the respondent/CBI that the documents sought for by the petitioner are not relevant to the case but averred that P.W.6 and P.W.7 were not connected with those documents. When the relevancy of the documents relating to the subject matter was not disputed by the respondent/CBI, the Court below ought to have exercised its power as the said documents called for are necessary or desirable in the interest of justice as they seem to have some relation to or connection with the subject matter of the trial. 13. Admittedly, a part of the said documents was marked as Exs.P-3 and P-9 by the respondent/ CBI, but, no reason is assigned for non-producing the remaining part of the said documents. Indeed, the remaining part of the documents are required by the petitioner/accused. The reason assigned by the trial Court lor dismissing the petition was that P.W.6 and P.W.7 would in no way have personal knowledge about the documents sought for. P.W. 7 is the Assistant Commissioner. Administration (Bonds and Customs) Chennai through whom a part of the documents were marked as Ex.P-9 series. As such, the reason that the said witness would not have nay knowledge relating to the remaining part of the documents is untenable. P.W. 7 is the Assistant Commissioner. Administration (Bonds and Customs) Chennai through whom a part of the documents were marked as Ex.P-9 series. As such, the reason that the said witness would not have nay knowledge relating to the remaining part of the documents is untenable. Very strangely, the trial Court has observed that "In the abovesaid circumstances when the prosecution has already filed the file connected with the bonds in question of M/s.Blue Shift Private Limited, as rightly contended by the Public Prosecutor, any matter connected to the same could be gathered by the petitioner from the file and therefore, there is no necessity for summoning the other pieces of documents stated in the petition...." The abovesaid observation made by the trial Court shows that the learned Judge failed to independently consider as to whether production of the documents is necessary or desirable, but, evaded his responsibility just based on the plea or averment made by the prosecution. 14. It is the duty of the trial Court to satisfy on consideration of all, the facts and circumstances, whether a document is necessary for a trial before passing the order in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 91 either way. The Court shall not act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution since a wide discretion is conferred on the Court in expectation that it shall be exercised judicially. 15. As I pointed out earlier, the respondent/CBI has not disputed the relevancy of the documents sought for by the petitioner. Indeed, a part of the same was produced by the respondent which confirms the relevancy of the documents. The petitioner has stated in his petition before the Court below that the documents sought for are necessary to prove the innocence of the accused and to confront with the prosecution witnesses 6 and 7. The above said reasons are sufficient grounds. Moreover, the accused is not expected to aver all of his defence. The duty is cast upon the Court of take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case while exercising its power under Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. 16. As the trial Court has failed to exercise its discretionary power judicially, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The petition filed before the trial Court by the petitioner/accused is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 7933 of 2002 is closed.