Judgment :- 1. In S.C.No. 173 of 2012, the petitioner herein is the sole accused, facing trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In the above case, during trial the petitioner has come forward with an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for the general diary of the respondent police station from 03.10.2011 to 05.10.2011 and the F.I.R. in Crime No. 260 of 2011, on the file of the same police station to substantiate the defence raised by the accused and as such the petitioner sought to issue summons to the Station House Officer to produce the documents above mentioned to give evidence in this regard. 2. The petition was filed after serving notice on the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor on receipt of such notice endorsed “I oppose”. The respondent also filed counter to the effect that the documents mentioned are in no way connected with the facts of the case and no proper reason has been assigned in the petition to send for the documents and the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. 3. The trial Court having received the counter on 28.02.2013 proceeded to hear both parties on the same day and adjourned the case to 02.03.2013 for orders. On 02.03.2013, the learned trial Judge passed an one line order “Order Pronounced. In the result, this petition is dismissed.” 4. Admittedly no detailed order was passed by the trial Court in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Aggrieved against the nature of the order passed in the petition and the manner in which the petition is disposed of, the accused has come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition before this Court. 5. It is seriously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents referred to in the petition are essential to prove the defence of the accused, who is facing trial for the occurrence allegedly happened on 03.10.2011 and the petitioner has come forward at the appropriate stage after the material witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and the case was at the stage of defence side evidence. The petitioner seriously opposed the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition without assigning any reason for doing so. 6. The petitioner seriously opposed the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition without assigning any reason for doing so. 6. The petition was seriously opposed by the respondent police mainly on the ground that no valid ground is made out to send for the documents, which are not relating to the case on hand. 7. Heard the rival submission made on both sides. 8. It is now well settled that the parties shall be given amble opportunity to put forth their case. In this case, the accused has come forward with a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the Station House Officer of the respondent police station to produce two documents mentioned in the petition, maintained in the police station during the period during which the date of occurrence falls. It is his specific case that the documents are required to substantiate his defence in the present case. The respondent has not raised any objection to the documents on the ground that the documents are not related to the respondent police station, but the objection raised is the documents are not related to the case on hand. 9. In my considered opinion, relevancy or otherwise of the documents summoned are the matter to be decided only after the documents are produced before the Courts concerned. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections available to them against the admissibility and relevancy of the documents and when the same is sought to be produced as evidence in this case. As such the objection raised on the side of the respondent police against the relevancy sought for in the objection in my considered view deserves no merit or substance. 10. Be that as it may, the trial Court has not assigned any reason for dismissing the petition. The course adopted by the trial Court is totally against law and is in violation of principles of natural justice and the well settled legal principles. Any order not supported by reasoning cannot be regarded as valid order in the eye of law. The Courts are required to give reasons only to test the correctness of the same and the failure on the part of the trial Court to give reasons deprive the accused of his opportunity to test the same on merits and the accused is thus deprived of valuable right available to him in this regard. 11. The Courts are required to give reasons only to test the correctness of the same and the failure on the part of the trial Court to give reasons deprive the accused of his opportunity to test the same on merits and the accused is thus deprived of valuable right available to him in this regard. 11. This Court considering the reasons set out in the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and considering the nature of the documents sought for and the designation of the officer summoned is of the view that the relief can be granted to the accused to give him due opportunity to put forth his case and substantiate his case. However, the respondent is at liberty to raise all objections available to the same in this regard as and when the document will be sought to be marked as evidence in the course of cross-examination of the witness. No prejudice at all will be caused to the respondent police by permitting the petitioner to summon the witness and to mark the documents as evidence. 12. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned order in Cr.M.P.800 of 2013 in S.C.No.173 of 2012, dated 02.03.2013 is set aside and the same is allowed by permitting the witness to be summoned to produce the documents and to give evidence. The respondent police is given the liberty to cross-examine the witness and to raise all the objections available to respondent against marking of the documents as witness at the appropriate stage. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2013 is closed.