JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is barred by 66 days. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor on merit. 3. In this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No, 124/2008; whereby, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-complainant, in which, a prayer was made that photographs which are taken in the investigation by the Investigating Officer may be summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for just decision those photographs were necessary, therefore, an application was filed by the petitioner) under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 5. I have perused the order impugned dated 12.1.2010. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that complainant has no locus standi to file application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. because before trial Court the trial is to be performed by the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution side. Whatever, material is required for trial is to be submitted along with charge-sheet and if at ' all any other document is required to be summoned then Public Prosecutor can file an application. The complainant's rights are very limited under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the complainant. 7. In my opinion, the finding given by the learned trial Court does not require any interference because if such type of application will be accepted by the trial Court filed by the complainant, then obviously, it will be endless job to decide the matter. 8. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that learned trial Court has rightly observed in the impugned order that rights of complainant are very limited, therefore, he cannot be permitted to file such application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. independently. 9. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed in default as well as on merit.Revision petition dismissed. *******