ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as leaned counsel for the informant. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.9.2013 passed by Md. Jawed Alam Judicial Magistrate 1st class , Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 346 of 2008 by which and whereunder he rejected petitions dated 02.09.2013 filed on behalf of the petitioners to call for certain documents in his defence. 3. It would appear, from perusal of the impugned order dated 16.09.2013 that three petitions were filed by the petitioner under Sections 91 read with section 243(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying therein to call for original letter dated 23.10.2008 along with its, all enclosures/annexures, written by H.D.F.C Bank Exhibition Road, Patna to Senior Manager PNB, Exhibition Road, Patna and to call for the letter dated 11.12.2008 along with its all enclosures from the office of the PNB Bank, Inspection and Audit Department Circle Office, Chanakya Tower, R. Block, Patna and also original letter along with its all enclosures form the office of Senior Superintendent of police, Patna or City S.P Patna, Officer in-charge, Gandhi Maidan and also original report date 8.11.2008 prepared by Sunil Kumar PW-6 will all enclosures from Zonal office R. Block, Patna. Learned Judicial Magistrate rejected all the petitions passing impugned order on the ground that a Bench of this court has directed the trial court to conclude the trial within fixed period and the above stated petition have been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a view to delay the trial. Furthermore, by the same impugned order learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class rejected the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C for recalling PW-6 Sunil Kumar and PW-8 Ashish Sinha for further cross-examination. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the above stated documents have been referred to by prosecution witnesses in their depositions but the aforesaid documents were not produced by the prosecution before the trial court and only photo copies of the aforesaid documents have been marked for identification. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the above stated documents have been referred to by prosecution witnesses in their depositions but the aforesaid documents were not produced by the prosecution before the trial court and only photo copies of the aforesaid documents have been marked for identification. It is further contended by him that when petitioner entered into his defence, he filed the above stated petitions before the trial court for calling for the above stated documents as the original documents are not in possession of the petitioner and so far as recalling of PW-6 and PW-8 are concerned, the purpose for recalling of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is only to ask certain questions relating to the above stated documents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the above stated submissions by arguing that the statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in the month of July 2013 and first date for defence evidence was fixed in the month of August 2013 but petitioner kept mum for near about two months and later on he filed the above stated petitions with an intention to delay the trial and to defy the order of this court. 6. It is an admitted position that the documents in question are not in possession of the defence and presently, the case is pending for recording defence evidence. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that details of the aforesaid documents have come in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. “ Section 243 of the Cr.P.C says that if the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross- examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing. Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.” 7. Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.” 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it would appear, that the accused can take help of court for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness or for production of any document and the court is duty bound to give aid to the accused for summoning a witness or for production of a document provided that the aforesaid prayer has not been made with an intent to delay the trial for defeating the ends of justice. 8. In the present case, admittedly, the detail of the document in question has come in deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have made statement before the trial court in course of their depositions in respect of the aforesaid documents. It is also obvious from the facts of the case that the original documents were not produced by the prosecution witnesses before the trial court rather photo copies of the aforesaid documents were produced before the trial court and the aforesaid photo copies have been marked for identification. The aforesaid fact clearly goes to show that accused is not demanding any new document rather he is also relying upon the documents which have been referred to by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions and therefore, even if the above stated petitions were filed after two months of recording the statement of Section 313 of Cr. P.C, then also it cannot be said that the aforesaid petitions were filed with an intent to delay the trial. Moreover, the aforesaid documents are in possession of PNB, Patna as well as police officials and therefore, the trial court can easily compel the aforesaid authorities to produce the above stated documents before the trial court within the reasonable period of time and therefore, it cannot be said that the mere summoning of the aforesaid documents will delay the trial of the petitioner. So far as rejection of petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, the defence only wants to ask some question from PW-6 and PW-8 relating to the above stated documents and therefore, in my view, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed error in rejecting the above stated prayer of the defence. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this quashing petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16.9.2013 passed by Md. Jawed Alam 1st class Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No. 246 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed with direction to learned Magistrate to call for the documents as prayed for by the petitioner and also to re-call the above stated prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination for the above stated limited purpose and the concerned Bank as well as government officials should be directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to take appropriate steps within the reasonable time in the light of his order. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. 11. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner with direction to the concerned court to complete the above stated steps within one month from the date of receipt of this order.