ORDER : 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 24.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 3666 of 2020, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a criminal case is pending consideration before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against petitioner along with two others for offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During pendency of criminal proceeding, petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for issuance of summons for production of document before the Court from the office of Superintendent of Police. He contended that with regard to the incident initially one enquiry was conducted, which was partial and therefore, appeal was filed before Senior Superintendent of Police, which came to be dismissed and the said report was essential for the decision of criminal proceeding. However, without considering the importance of document, leaned Court below dismissed the application only on the ground that the case is at the stage of framing of charge. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that learned Court below passed the detailed order assigning reason for rejecting the application submitted by petitioner. The provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides that if the Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable then the Court may issue summons or an order to the persons in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be. There is no error in the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner along with the petition has not placed on record the copy of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed before the Court below. Only the written argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner before the trial Court is placed on record as Annexure A-2. Copy of order is Annexure A-1. Learned Court below observed that for producing evidence in defence, it is for the defence itself for defending the charges or the criminal case registered against accused persons, proper opportunity to be given under the provisions of the Code of Cr.P.C.. Copy of order is Annexure A-1. Learned Court below observed that for producing evidence in defence, it is for the defence itself for defending the charges or the criminal case registered against accused persons, proper opportunity to be given under the provisions of the Code of Cr.P.C.. For producing any documents as an evidence in defence can not be ordered. Petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., before learned Court below at the stage of framing of charge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused can not be put-forth. Permitting accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge is against the criminal jurisprudence. The necessity or desirability of production of documents has to be seen with reference to stage when a prayer is made for production. The question invoking Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the initial stage of framing of charge would not arise because the defence of accused is not relevant at that stage. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides for summoning and production of documents as may be necessary at any stages and the entitlement of accused to seek an order under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. will ordinarily come at the stage of his defence. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 has observed in para 25 and 27, which is as under :- “25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code'. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof. 27. In so far as Section 91 is concerned, it was rightly held that the width of the powers of that section was unlimited but there were inbuilt inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object. Before the trial court the stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Code for summoning and production of document was dismissed and order was upheld by High Court and this Court. Before the trial court the stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Code for summoning and production of document was dismissed and order was upheld by High Court and this Court. But observations were made in para 6 to the effect that if the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to look into the material so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial/public time, these observations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of no consequence in view of conclusion reached by us hereinbefore. Further, the observations cannot be understood to mean that the accused has a right to produce any document at stage of framing of charge having regard to the clear mandate of Sections 227 and 228 in Chapter 18 and Sections 239 and 240 in Chapter 19.” 7. In the case at hand also, the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed at the stage of framing of charge when the case was fixed for arguments on charge, therefore, in the light of aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any error in rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Court below. 8. The revision petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.