JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No.01/2014, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act) No.10, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Original Case No.2008/2011, Surendra Kumar v. CLG Institute , whereby the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. In the proceedings pending against the petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioners moved an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. and prayed for summoning of certain documents said to be in possession of Gena Ram, Sohan Lal, Mangla Ram, Praveen Kumar and complainant Surendra Kumar. The said application of the petitioners was rejected by the trial court while observing that it is not clear that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioners are in the possession of the persons named in the application because those persons are neither the complainant nor accused and they have also not been produced as witnesses in the case. The learned trial court has also observed that the income tax return pertaining to the complainant Surendra Kumar, for the year running from 2008 to 2011, also cannot be summoned because Surendra Kumar has denied from filing the income tax return for the said period. The learned trial court has also observed that if the petitioners wish to produce those documents during the course of proceedings, they are free to do so and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed at this stage. 3. The revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court, while observing that the petitioners may produce the evidence during the course of the proceedings at appropriate stage, if they wish to do so. 4. While arguing this criminal misc. 3. The revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court, while observing that the petitioners may produce the evidence during the course of the proceedings at appropriate stage, if they wish to do so. 4. While arguing this criminal misc. petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the predicament of the petitioners is this that once the application filed by the petitioners for summoning the said documents has been rejected by the trial court, they will not be in a position to move another application for the same purpose in the proceedings even in rebuttal after the evidence of the complainant. 5. After perusing the order passed by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the application of the petitioners under section 91 Cr.P.C., the trial court has clearly observed that the said application cannot be allowed at this stage. The trial court has also taken into consideration that till date the evidence of the prosecution has also not been started. From the observations made by the trial court, it can only be presumed that the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed at this stage only and they are always free to move appropriate application for summoning the documents in the later part of the proceedings, if law permits to do so. In such circumstances, this Court finds the predicament of the petitioners ill-founded and, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Hence, this criminal misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed. *******