JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. Heard. Admit. 2. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the orders dated 29/07/2010 and 15/10/2015 respectively passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur to the extent they reject the application [Exh.22] filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking intervention of the Court in calling for the documents listed in the application. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and arbitrary as they presume certain facts, which are not borne out from the record, are against the settled principles of law and have resulted in depriving the applicant of an opportunity to defend himself fairly. 5. The learned A.P.P. for the State submits that at this stage, no immediate prejudice has been caused and, therefore, it may not be necessary to interfere with the order. 6. The application vide Exh.22 clearly shows that the applicant has taken serious exception to the comments made in the Audit Report and has rejected them. He has also clarified that there were several documents which were either not shown to the Auditors or not considered by them while submitting the Audit Report. It is also his contention that if these documents had been considered by the Auditors, perhaps the conclusions made in the report could have been different. This is what the learned Counsel for the applicant submits, was canvassed before the Courts below, but to no avail. There is no reason for me to dispute the fact that these very grounds of the application were not brought to the notice of the Courts below. Yet, it is surprising that the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that this applicant never mentioned in the application at Exh.22 that these documents were necessary for his defence. I do not understand what more eloquence was required on the part of the applicant to drive home the reason behind and the purpose for which the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was moved by him. Therefore, the argument that the impugned orders disclose perversity has to be accepted. 7. I do not understand what more eloquence was required on the part of the applicant to drive home the reason behind and the purpose for which the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was moved by him. Therefore, the argument that the impugned orders disclose perversity has to be accepted. 7. It has also been opined by the Courts below that the stage for adducing of defence evidence is yet to arrive and, therefore, there is no need for calling for these documents. It has also been found by the Courts below that the applicant has failed to show the existence of these documents and also the fact that they are in the custody of the prosecution. I think, the Courts below have gone way off the mark in reasoning so. Existence of these documents, in fact, ought to have been denied by the prosecution. But, prosecution did not and did not even file say to the application. So, the reason given in the impugned orders is incorrect, having been based on some assumptions wrongly made. I must say, these documents are certainly required by the applicant to effectively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Otherwise, a blame would be placed upon his shoulders that no specific defence, rather no foundation for taking a defence was led by the applicant. So far as the ground resorted to by the Courts below that this applicant has failed to show the documents to be in the custody of the prosecution is concerned, I must say, it has never been the case of the applicant that these documents are in the custody of the prosecution. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the view that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not considered the grounds taken by the applicant appropriately and also have not seen the importance of these documents from the view point of putting forward an effective defence in the matter. In fact, these documents as listed in the application at Exh.22 appear to be of seminal importance from the view point of defence and since the principles of fairness require that the accused be given an equal opportunity for proving his case, the application ought to have been allowed. In the result, the revision application deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders. 8. The revision application is allowed. In the result, the revision application deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders. 8. The revision application is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The application at Exh.22 is allowed. Summons to the witnesses accordingly shall be issued in terms of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision allowed.