JUDGMENT : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) : The instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial court’), rejecting the application filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 91 of Cr. P.C. for summoning the documents. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(2) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before learned trial court. The trial court has framed the charges and the case is pending before trial court for recording the prosecution evidence. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were members of a team which visited Sardarshahar for inspection of Bhanwarlal Dungar Ayurveda Vishwa Bharti College. The inspecting team demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- as illegal gratification for giving a favourable report to the college. On receiving complaints, on 17.04.2017, competent police officials laid a trap and accused-petitioners were arrested with illegal gratification. 3. By way of filing an application before learned trial court under Section 91 Cr. P.C., the accused-petitioners prayed for summoning the documents relating to certain communication between Dr. Bhanwar Lal Dungar, Ayurvedic College, Sardarshahar and Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short, ‘CCIM’) along with report of the visitation team sent to CCIM online. The documents relating to certain photography and videography of the college on 17.04.2017 and 18.04.2017 were also demanded as according to accused- petitioners, they are relevant for the case being tried against them. 4. Learned trial court vide impugned order 16.07.2022 was pleased to reject the application filed under Section 91 CrPC on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners is of demanding illegal gratification. As per the trial court, the question to be tried is not as to whether institution/college is being run contrary to the applicable rules or not. The trial court in its impugned order dated 16.07.2022 also noticed that the documents prayed to be summoned pertains to the defence of the accused and therefore, even if they are relevant in connection with particular witness they should be brought on record at an appropriate stage and this cannot be a reason for summoning the documents at this stage. 5. 5. Challenging the validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 16.07.2022, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court committed an error in not appreciating the fact that when a witness gives evidence in the Court and thereafter subjected to cross examination by defence, that itself is a defence of the accused, which is put to the witness to elicit his comments or explanations, if any, in relation to his statement previously recorded i.e. u/Sec. 161 CrPC and in connection with the documents in regard to which, the said witness is privy or is aware in connection with the defence as put across during cross examination. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the reasoning given under the impugned order is accepted and treated to be correct, then defence will not be in position to exhibit or bring on record the document relevant being his defence at the stage of post Sec. 313 CrPC, whereupon these documents cannot be exhibited unless the said witnesses are recalled and confronted with the same. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground that the documents prayed for pertain to defence of the accused and therefore, they should be brought on record at an appropriate stage. 7. On the strength of these submissions, learned Senior Counsel prayed that the order impugned dated 16.07.2022 passed by learned trial court may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel and submitted that the learned trial court had considered the matter and in its discretion had rejected the application of the petitioners which cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to upset the well reasoned discretionary order passed by learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the criminal miscellaneous petition may be dismissed by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Section 91 of CrPC is reproduced below for ready reference:— “Section 91. Summons to produce document or other thing. Learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the criminal miscellaneous petition may be dismissed by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Section 91 of CrPC is reproduced below for ready reference:— “Section 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.” 10. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by learned trial court reads as under:— ^^4-nksukas i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr esjk ;g er gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq ugha gS fd lEcfU/kr laLFkk xyr :i ls fu;eksa ds fo:) pykbZ tk jgh gSA U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq gS fd D;k vfHk;qDrksa us voS/k :i ls laLFkk ds izfr i{kikriw.kZ joS;k viukus ds fy, fj'or dh ekax oxSjk dh\ vfHk;kstu dks viuh dgkuh fl) djuh gS rFkk vfHk;qDr i{k dks mudh izfrj{kkA ;fn vfHk;qDr i{k dh dksbZ izfrj{kk gS] rks mls bl Lrj ij izLrqr djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd blls lkf{k;ksa ds ijh{k.k esa ukgd foyEc iSnk gksXkkA eSaus vkt tks xokg jfoUnz dqekj rFkk jkeizlkn U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gq, gSa] muds 161 nŒizŒlaŒ ds c;kuksa dk v/;;u fd;k gSA buesa ls jfoUnz dqekj bl lEcU/k esa Hkh lk{kh gS fd muds le{k foftVs'ku Vhe us iUnzg yk[k :i;ksa dh ekax dh Fkh ftUgsa mUgksaus laLFkk izcU/kd rd igqapk;k FkkA vfHk;qDrx.k lh-lh-vkbZ-,e- ubZ fnYyh ftl laLFkk us foftVs'ku Vhe dks Hkstk Fkk] mls izsf"kr viuh fjiksVZ eaxokuk pkgrs gSa tks vkWuykbZu Hksth xbZ FkhA ;g nLrkost foftVs'ku ds nkSjku dh xbZ QksVksxzkQh o ohfM;ksxzkQh dh lh-Mh- laLFkk dh vizSy 2017 dh f'k{kd laoxZ dh mifLFkfr iaftdk] 01-01-2016 ls 31-12-2016 rd ds vkbZ-ih-Mh- jftLVj] 17-04-2017 o 18-04-2017 dks ,usDlpj&1 esa izLrqr f'k{kd laoxZ dh tkudkjh o foftVlZ dks izLrqr fd;k tkus okyk izsLØkbCM QkWesZV ¼tks lHkh v/;kidksa ds }kjk Hkjs tkus okys ,fQMsfoV ds :i esa Hkjs tkrs gSa½ gSaA esjs er esa vfHk;qDr i{k ds ;g nLrkost mudh izfrj{kk ls lEcU/k j[krs gsa rFkk mUgsa viuh izfrj{kk mi;qDr Lrj ij izLrqr djuh pkfg;sA ;fn fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ;g nLrkost bu lkf{k;ksa ls izR;{kr% ;k vizR;{kr% lqlaxr gSa rks dsoy bl vk/kkj ij mifLFkr lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; dks jksd dj mDr nLrkost eaxok;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA esjs er esa bu izkFkZuk i=ksa dks bl Lrj ij Lohdkj djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS rFkk eSa lEcfU/kr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks Lohdkj djuk mi;qDr ugha le>rk gwaA^^ 11. The accused petitioners are facing trial for accepting illegal gratification. The accused petitioners are facing trial for accepting illegal gratification. The reason given by learned trial court in the impugned order that the question to be tried by it is not as to whether institution/college is being run contrary to the applicable rules or not, is a good reason in support of the order. 12. The powers conferred upon trial Court under Section 91 Cr. P.C. are discretionary in nature and does not confer absolute right upon the accused to make endeavour for summoning the documents. The powers under Section 91 CrPC is to be exercised by the Court in appropriate cases, at an appropriate stage, when it thinks that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of fair trial. It is worth noticing that learned trial court in its impugned order dated 16.07.2022 has observed that the documents prayed to be summoned pertains to defence of the accused- petitioners and therefore, relevant documents can be summoned at the proper time in the course of the trial and for that purpose, the trial cannot be impeded. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, except for the exceptional reasons, the discretion conferred on the trial courts under Section 91 CrPC in the matter of summoning documents should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC as such interference generally hampers the progress of the case before trial court. It is apposite to note here that in the present case, the trial against the petitioner for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has not progressed due to interim order passed by this Court on 06.09.2022. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned trial court on 16.07.2022 warranting interference. 15. In the result, the present miscellaneous petition and stay petition are dismissed. No order as to costs.