JUDGMENT 1. - By the order impugned dated 7.10.2010 learned Judicial Magistrate rejected an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 2. While pressing this misc. petition, at the threshold, it is submitted by Shri M.C. Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate, that he want to confine his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling the documents dated 29.11.2008 and 26.12.2008 only. The document dated 29.11.2008 is a letter written to the Superintendent of Police (City), Jodhpur on behalf of "Shri Brahman Swarankar Sabha" and its signatories are Sarva Shri Amritlal, Kriparam and Shyam Sunder. The document dated 26.12.2008 is a letter written to Circle Officer (City), Jodhpur on behalf of "Suryanagari Vikas Samiti" and is signed by Sarva Shri Dr. R.N. Bhargava, Laxminarain, Dayal Singh and Dr. Kiran Bhargava. 3. By placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi, reported in (2000)5 SCC 679 and Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in (1980)3 SCC 152 , it is submitted that a court is having a wide discretion while considering an application seeking production of documents and such discretion may be exercised at any stage and even at the stage of considering a case for taking cognisance of the offence, thus, the trial court erred while rejecting the application on the count that no such application could be granted, while considering a case for taking cognisance of an offence. 4. Per contra, as per Shri Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, though the width of the powers of a court as per Section 91 Cr.P.C. are unlimited, but there are certain inherent checks and the court while exercising the power aforesaid is required to consider necessity and desirability of the documents sought to be produced. Reliance is placed by Shri Bora on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in this regard in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in 2005(1) SCC 568 . 5. Reliance is placed by Shri Bora on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in this regard in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in 2005(1) SCC 568 . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary for perusal of the Court, wherefrom it reveals that the documents sought to be produced are part of it and during the course of investigation all the signatories of the documents called for were interrogated as per provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statements of these persons are part of police report submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The statements given by these persons are in consonance of the contents of the documents referred above. As such the purpose of calling the documents has already been satisfied. 6. In such circumstances, I do not find any need to examine other merits of the case. No case, therefore, is made out for interference with the order impugned. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioners to get the documents produced at any subsequent stage, if required. The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of. *******