ORDER 1. By the present criminal revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.1.2015 passed by Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Dhar (M.P.) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued the fact that the complainant has made a report to the SPE Lokayukta, Indore, regarding the conversations made between the complainant and the petitioner which was recorded in a micro taperecorder. After the preliminary enquiry, an FIR was registered against the petitioner, however, the accused was caught with the tainted currency notes and a chargesheet was filed in this matter. During the trial, the statements of the complainant-Parmanand (PW1) and shadow witness Constable-Kamlesh (PW2) have been recorded, wherein the shadow witness Kamlesh (PW2) in Paras-4 and 25 of the statements have asserted that on 17.12.2013 at about 6:15 am, the complainant-Parmanand and he himself were present at the Lokayukta Office, Indore and on the other hand, the complainant-Parmanand (PW1) has made the statements in Paras-21 and 22 denying the fact that on 17.12.2013 he had gone to the Lokayukta Office and handed over the micro taperecorder to the complainant. 3. It was candidly admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Parmanand (PW1) has turned hostile before the Court and has not supported the prosecution case and in this light, the trial Court has dismissed the application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that the call details and tower locations were not at all required, as the prosecution witness has already turned hostile in this matter and Kamlesh (PW2) has been exhaustively cross-examined on this point. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Jitendra Singh Tomar v. Special Establishment of the Lokayukt, Bhopal, LAWS (MPH)-2014-7-319 has very specifically held that “the question as to how for the document is relevant and helpful in the trial either to the prosecution or defence is not a question which has to be considered at this stage.” The trial Court has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner without relying upon the documents. 5. 5. Per Contra, Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application and has submitted that the present revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. 6. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, LAWS (SC)-1999-2-89. 7. To resolve the controversy involved in this matter, without going into the merits of the case, we find that it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the application on its own merits and maintainability, since the word 'at this stage' was used in the operative part of the order impugned by the trial Court while application for rejecting the application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and now the trial is at the stage of defence of the accused. 8. We therefore direct that the application is remanded back to the trial Court to decide it afresh on its own merits as well as on maintainability. Needless to mention here that the trial Court is free to decide the same on its own merit, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition stands disposed of.