ORDER G.D. Saxena, J. 1. This Revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the Petitioners/accused is directed against an order dated 15th December 2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 105/2008 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena, dismissing thereby an application filed by the accused under Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure for providing the copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer of Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena in Crime No. 26/2008 for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. The facts, in short, are that complainant Vijay Singh lodged a report at P.S., to the effect that on 28th September 2009 at about 7 a.m. in the morning while he was returning back he was informed by the neighbours that by the side of garden of Munna Gusai, at Village Sabalgarh, dead-body of one namely, Nora @ Bhagawan Singh Khatik was found lying under suspicious circumstances. It is alleged that a just day before, on 27th September 2008, the deceased went to attend the marriage function of daughter of Sannu Kushawah. On the report lodged by the complainant which was registered on Marg Intimation report, inquiry was carried out. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Kakaur of Community Health Center, Sabalgarh. The viscera was preserved. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners and other accused person. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Jeetu, Kammoda, Jamnabai, Kuldeep, Balle, Rajoli, Rakesh and Munna were recorded on 29th January 2008, just after two days of the incident by the Investigating Officer. Then after two months of the incident, before filing charge-sheet, again additional statements of these witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the statements recorded on 29th January 2008 were not filed with the charge sheet nor copies thereof were supplied by the Investigating Officer. It is argued that the statements recorded on 29th January 2008 were essential for just and fair decision of the case and therefore they were to be filled before the trial Judge to substantial the defence of the accused. It is argued that the statements recorded on 29th January 2008 were essential for just and fair decision of the case and therefore they were to be filled before the trial Judge to substantial the defence of the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Judge is against law and principles of natural justice. It is requested that by allowing the revision petition, the trial court be directed that the statements of the prosecution witnesses dated 29th & 30th January 2008 be produced before the trial court and the copies of those statements as mentioned above be supplied to the Petitioners. 4. The learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer of the accused/Petitioners and submitted that No. illegality or irregularity is committed while rejecting the application of the Petitioners under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No. 218/2008 registered by Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena and the law applicable to the case. 6. In the case before this Court, though it has been alleged in the said application by the Petitioners/accused that the statements in question are necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, the learned trial Judge at the time of examination of the said application, did not find sufficient materials on which an order under Section 91 could be made. Hence, the question that remains to be answered by this Court is that whether the prosecution was obliged to submit the same alongwith the charge-sheet before the court and supply copies thereof to the Petitioners-accused. 7. At this juncture, it would be useful to reproduce Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as is under: 91. 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 proceedings under this code by or before such Court or such 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. 8. If Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be attracted, the Court has to be satisfied that the document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or any other thing and secondly it is also required under the above section that the document must be in possession of the other party. Any document or other thing as indicated in the aforesaid section can be directed to be produced on finding that the said document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of the case. The discretion conferred on the court is an absolute discretion, the only condition for the exercise of the discretion being that in the opinion of the court the production of the document should be necessary or desirable for the purposes of the enquiry, trial or other proceeding before the court. In determining that question, he has to exercise his discretion judicially, in the sense that he must satisfy himself that the document has bearing upon and is relevant to the case. 9. In the case of Om Parkash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi ( AIR 2000 SC 2335 ), the Hon. Apex Court held: While considering the application for summoning and production of documents, 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 in futility at the expense 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. The Court concerned must be allowed a large latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion. 10. The Court concerned must be allowed a large latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion. 10. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the FIR about the unnatural death perhaps murder by some unknown persons was recorded on the basis of Marg report on 28th September 2008. Thereafter, the statements of eye-witnesses Murarilal, Munna, Jeetu, Kammodi, Jamunabai, Kuldeep Singh, Dilip, Kamal Singh, Rajaram, were recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station Sabalgarh, and at subsequent stage of investigation, on 6th March 2008 the supplementary statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer and have been filed. The statements recorded of the witnesses at earlier stage on 29th and 30th January, 2008 were not submitted by the I.O., at the time of filing charge-sheet before the concerning criminal court. 11. In the case of Gartri Bais v. State of M.P. 1998 (2) MPLJ 629 this Court held: Public Prosecutors are prosecutors appointed for prosecuting the offenders or prosecuting them for safeguarding the interest of the public. If the accused makes a prayer for production of any document which is necessary for the purpose of finding out the truth in a trial being conducted by them, they should not withhold such documents merely because the investigating agency does not like ti to be produced in the court on the ground that it may help the defence. Duty of the Public prosecutor is to safe guard the interest of the public in prosecution or connected with the prosecution and that includes the accused also. None can be punished without following the due process of law. When in trial, the court is searching the truth all that is relevant and necessary for that purpose should not be withheld. The person moving such an application has to satisfy the court that such order is necessary to be issued in the interest of justice. Such applications can be moved at any stage of the trial. But preferably such applications should be moved before framing of the charge, by prosecution or the defence so as to see that No. prejudice is caused to the adversary and No. inconvenience is caused to the court. 12. Such applications can be moved at any stage of the trial. But preferably such applications should be moved before framing of the charge, by prosecution or the defence so as to see that No. prejudice is caused to the adversary and No. inconvenience is caused to the court. 12. Further, on bare looking to the provisions of Section 208 Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that it is the duty of the Magistrate in cases in which the offence is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, without delay furnish to the accused free of cost, a copy of all statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure The investigation agency is further duty bound to furnish the statements recorded after lodging FIR and after launching investigation before the trial court and is also bound to supply the copies of those statements recorded on earlier stage to the accused. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Judge has passed the order ignoring the relevant provisions of law and if the said order is allowed to stand, it would cause great prejudice to the accused-Petitioners. Same being not sustainable in law, is hereby dismissed. 14. Ex consequenti, the revision is allowed setting aside the order passed by the trial court dated 15th December 2009. The trial court shall direct the Investigating Agency to submit all statements of the witnesses recorded so far under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after supplying copies thereof to the Petitioners-accused.