JUDGMENT : B.A.Patil, J. Crl.P. 102487/2018 is filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to transfer Sessions Case No.109/2007 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Hubballi to any other Court District and Sessions Court, within Dharwad District. 2. Crl.P. No.102486/2018 is also filed by the same petitioners praying to quash the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli, on an application under Section 91 read with Section read with Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C., in the above said sessions case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Since both the petitions arise out of the same Sessions Case, and they are inter-linked with each other, in order to avoid repetition of the facts and the law, both are heard together and by virtue of this common order they are disposed off. 5. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2005, between 7.45 a.m. to 8.15 a.m. opposite to old bus stand near Renuka Hotel, accused Nos.1 to 4 dragged the complainant forcibly inside the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.MH-01 3643 and proceeded towards Bijapur road and after travelling for 10 to 20 kilometers, the accused threw the chilli powder in the eyes of the complainant and removed his dress and robbed four kgs. of gold from his bag and also cash, gold chain, finger rings and mobile set, and they also gave threat to the complainant and they pushed him from the moving Tata Sumo vehicle in order to take away his life. Complainant suffered grievous injuries and he came to the police station and filed the complaint. 6. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 8. Charge was framed and 24 witnesses were came to be examined. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused also examined defence witnesses and when the matter was posted for arguments, petitioners/accused filed an application under Section 91 read with sub-section (3) of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. is filed praying to direct P.W.24 investigating officer to produce concerned documents and ten pieces of gold before the Court. The said application was contested by the prosecution by filing objection. After hearing, the learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/accused by order dated 15.12.2018. Challenging the said order, the petitioners/accused are before this Court. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the learned District Judge has expressed his opinion on merits of the case and, as such it is not proper on the part of that Court to hear the said sessions case and as such they have also asked for transfer of the said case. It is his further contention that the Court has already formed an opinion and the petitioners/accused apprehend that they may not get justice at the hands of the said Court. It is his further submission that the apprehension as to bias as against an accused is a good ground for seeking transfer of the case from the said learned District & Sessions Judge. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 62 . It is his further contention that non-recovery of gold by P.W.24 is a crucial aspect in order to determine the case of the petitioners/accused and to falsify the case of the complainant and the police. The said documents and gold is very important to decide the case of the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions, set aside the order dated 15.12.2018 and to transfer the said sessions case to some other court. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the deposition of P.W.24, the Investigating Officer, clearly reveals that he has seized 17 pieces of gold which were totally weighing 1 kg 150 miligrams and 10 grams of ingot; under another mahazar, the Investigating Officer seized 10 grams of gold; and subsequently, under one more mahazar, the Investigating Officer seized 10 grams of ingot gold; P.W.24, in his evidence, has also deposed about the recovery of gold ring and gold chain. Already the said mahazars have been got marked during the course of evidence of the prosecution and a lengthy cross-examination has been done. Already the said mahazars have been got marked during the course of evidence of the prosecution and a lengthy cross-examination has been done. If at all, there is any benefit, then it goes to the accused, but without looking into the said aspect, only with an intention to drag on the proceeding on one count or the other, such applications have been filed by the petitioners/accused. She further submits that there is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petitions. 9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 10. Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I feel it proper to quote section 91 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "91. Summons to produce document or other thing.- (1) Whenever any Court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed (a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers, Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891); or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority." 11. On a close reading of the said section, although the language used is very wide, but while exercising the said power or discretion, the Court has to judiciously exercise the said power. On a close reading of the said section, although the language used is very wide, but while exercising the said power or discretion, the Court has to judiciously exercise the said power. The said section also makes it clear that which is anything part of the evidence or that thing is having a direct connection between the production of the documents and the subject matter, then under such circumstances, the court may order production of such documents, but a thing which has no connection with enquiry or a trial then under such circumstances, the Court cannot call for anything and everything from anybody and everybody. Something having relation to the subject matter of enquiry and for having a link in evidence, if considered to be necessary or desirable, then the Court can order/direct for production of the same; the accused cannot seek for production of the documents as a matter of right; the accused, while making an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., has to specify clearly the document sought to be produced and must show its relevance to the subject matter, then thereafter the Court can decide whether it is necessary or desirable for a just decision of the case. If such application is made after a long delay then it can be held that the said application was made with an intention to delay the trial. I am conscious of the fact that while passing orders on such application, the learned Judge is not competent to make any observation on the merits of the main case. But as could be seen from the records, the learned Sessions Judge, in order to consider the application and pass the reasoned order thereon, has referred to the evidence of P.W.24 and thereafter it has decided the said application, but the said observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, in no way, decides the case of the petitioners/accused on merits so as to contend that the case has been discussed on merits and the Court is biased or prejudiced. The apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge is biased merely upon certain observations allegedly made by the Presiding Officer during the course of the proceedings will not give any right to the accused to get the case transferred. Transfer should not be allowed when trial is likely to be completed or almost closed. The apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge is biased merely upon certain observations allegedly made by the Presiding Officer during the course of the proceedings will not give any right to the accused to get the case transferred. Transfer should not be allowed when trial is likely to be completed or almost closed. On going through the records, it is seen that the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and thereafter accused also came to be examined under Section 313. When the accused also came to be examined and the case was posted for arguments, the said application came to be filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The said conduct of the accused appears to be not fair. If really, he intended to secure the said documents from P.W.24, then under such circumstances, immediately after examination of P.W.24, he could have filed such application or he could have filed the application when the charge was framed. Examination of witnesses by the Court was commenced long back during 2011 and P.W.24 came to be examined before the Court on 24.06.2017, and thereafter, the application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 13.12.2018. All these material clearly go to show that the said application has been filed only to protract the proceedings. If any gold has not been produced before the Court along with seizure memo, then it will be beneficial for the accused; he cannot investigate the case. If any benefit of doubt arises, it will be in his favour. Whatever the contentions which have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a matter for final argument. Why the other gold articles have not been produced is of no concern to the petitioners/accused. The application filed under section 91 is beyond the scope. Even the relevancy of the documents, which are intended to be produced, has not been clearly stated in the application as contemplated under the law. The learned District Judge, after considering the material placed on record, has passed the impugned order and the said observation which has been made will not create any apprehension and the learned Judge has not expressed any view that the accused have committed the alleged offences under which they have been charge-sheeted. In that light, the contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water. In that light, the contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water. Looking from any angle, the petitioners have not made out any good ground to set aside the order dated 15.12.2018 passed on the application filed under Section 91 read with Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C. and to transfer the case to some other court. Since the matter is of the year 2007 and it has not yet reached finality, if it is transferred then again it will consume lot of time and there will be delay in disposal of the case and, on that count also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, petitions being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.