JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking the relief to set aside the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Ambah district Morena in Criminal Case No. 1306/2011 (Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma) pending under Section138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by which learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the accused/petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 3. The facts giving arise to this petition in brief are that the petitioner/accused obtained loan to the tune of Rs.82,80,000/- from the respondent/complainant Bank against the receipts of the warehouse and issued cheques of Central Bank of India, Branch Porsa having account No. 10206 on 13.04.2011. The value of these cheques is Rs.92,98,485/-. As these cheques were dishonoured, the complainant/bank has filed this complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On behalf of the petitioner/accused, it is submitted that for the loan against receipts of the warehouse, no cheque was issued by him for construction of warehouse. He obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- which was duly paid by him. Twenty post dated cheques were given to the Bank. If the loan amount is not repaid, the same could be recovered through these cheques as per the conditions imposed in the loan agreement. In compliance of these conditions, cheques No. 12611 to 12620 were given to the Bank as security to the loan amount. Against the second loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, only Rs.10,00,000/- was disbursed, which the petitioner deposited with the Bank. An account statement in this regard was given to the petitioner but the blank cheques which were given as a security were not returned to the petitioner. 4. In a different loan, these cheques were used by the respondent/complaint Bank by showing imaginary amounts. The petitioner, therefore, sought the file with regard to the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- which was lying with the complainant/Bank. These cheques were not produced and it was submitted that the same is returned to the applicant/borrower. It was further submitted by the Bank that with regard to the loan, all relevant files were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal on 19.06.2012 and the files are in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal but could not succeed. It was further submitted by the Bank that with regard to the loan, all relevant files were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal on 19.06.2012 and the files are in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal but could not succeed. The applicant, therefore, requested to the Trial Court to issue an order to the Bank or to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal to produce the documents before the evidence begins in this case. 5. The complainant/respondent opposed the application before the Trial Court and submitted that every document related to loan case No. 70611 including the cheques were returned to the accused/petitioner. The other file of the Bank was seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal on 19.06.2012. In Challan D-153 and D-154 corroborates the same that the document has been in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal. The present application has been filed to confuse the Trial Court and to prolong the decision. 6. The application dated 17.01.2014 was rejected by the learned Trial Court. After perusal of the record held that loan of Rs.82,80,000/- was obtained by the petitioner/accused against the receipts of warehouse. He executed cheques on 13.04.2011 from his Bank account No. 10206 of Central Bank of India Branch Porsa, how many cheques issued by him was not disclosed. When the documents or cheques seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal and the same is not included in the charge-sheet filed at Special Court, Bhopal, this copy of the same cannot be obtained by the applicant/accused but what efforts he has done to receive the same document has not been made clear in the application. No document in this regard has been filed. Learned Trial Court observed that which document the applicant/accused wants to obtain from the Central Bureau of Investigation has not been made clear nor it is sure as to which document is lying with Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal. 7. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that previous loan account No. 40611 was completely paid. Registered document of the immovable property was returned. Cheques have not been returned. It is also stated that the cheques which have been issued by the accused/petitioner as security against that loan are being used by the complainant/respondent. This can only be established after calling the file relating to loan account No. 70611 of the Bank. Registered document of the immovable property was returned. Cheques have not been returned. It is also stated that the cheques which have been issued by the accused/petitioner as security against that loan are being used by the complainant/respondent. This can only be established after calling the file relating to loan account No. 70611 of the Bank. Therefore, the documents could be either with the Bank or it is with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal as per the version of the Bank or it may be with the Court. But the documents are not in the possession of the Court. The file may be lying with the Central Bureau of Investigation or with the Bank. In such situation, the provision of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised, which the learned Trial Court failed to exercise. 8. Replying the same, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that every cheque, which was issued by the petitioner, was received by the Bank duly endorsed in its back leaf by the petitioner. The amount deposited and the balance remained. Therefore, the so called cheques issued by the petitioner relating to the loan was very clear. The present loan is completely different from that of the loan amount in loan case No. 70611. 9. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the records and perusal of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., I find no irregularity in the impugned order. The petitioner/accused has not provided any list of documents before the learned Trial Court. This petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner/accused may file a fresh application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. giving the list of documents and details and specifying the dates so that the application can be dealt with more accurately. Vague description of document would not entail the petitioner to call any documents from the possession of the respondent/complainant. 10. With the above directions, petition is disposed of.