ORDER : Heard Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Neelendra D Gunde for respondent CBI. 2. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers: "In Crl.P.No.101480/2023 To allow the application U/sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 09.08.2012 and direction be issued for production of the records set out for purpose of proceedings in Spl. Cbi CC 10/2013, (Old Spl. CC No. 56/2012) on the file of 3rd Addl. District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad, dismissed on 05.02.2013 and since the documents are volumes it is prayed for the call for the records from III Addl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Dharwad CBI Spl.Case CC 10/2013. In Crl.P.No.101486/2023 Quash the order dated 26/10/2013, passed in Spl. CBI.CC.10/2013 consequently allow the application under Sec.91 R/w 233(3) of CRI P.C. dated 23.08.2013 and direction be issued for production of the records set out for purpose of proceedings in Spl.Cbi.CC.10/2013 on the file of 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad and that the documents resting at the 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad are voluminous in nature, this Hon'ble Court may please to pass an order for calling of the records from 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad." 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Petitioners are facing trial in respect of alleged bank fraud in Special C.C. No.56/2012. Charges have been framed as long back as on 25.07.2010. Trial is under progress. In respect of alleged fraud, there was a departmental enquiry held by the Union Bank of India, Front Road Branch, Bijapur. The enquiry was also further carried out by the Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Belagavi. According to the petitioners there is an inspection report conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain who was the Chief Manager from Mumbai and he has furnished a report. 4. The petitioners submit that in the said report, petitioners have been found to be innocent and therefore they have to confront the same to the investigation officer as defence of accused. 5. According to the petitioners there is an inspection report conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain who was the Chief Manager from Mumbai and he has furnished a report. 4. The petitioners submit that in the said report, petitioners have been found to be innocent and therefore they have to confront the same to the investigation officer as defence of accused. 5. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that for the reasons best known the investigation officer, he did not deem it fit to collect the report of the inspection conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager of Union Bank of India and same would go to the very root of the matter in establishing that the accused are innocent of the offences alleged against them and therefore sought for summoning of the document. 6. An application came to be filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in this regard as attempt made by the petitioners to obtain the said copy through Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act' for short) came to be rejected by the concerned bank. The learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections filed by the prosecution, allowed the application in part and directed to summon 14 documents out of 27 documents that were sought to be summoned. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners accused are before this Court. 8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the report of inspection conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain during the period from 26.10.2004 to 27.10.2004 is utmost necessary to establish the fact that the petitioners are totally innocent and therefore the application filed by the petitioners be allowed. 9. Per contra, Sri.Neelendra D Gunde representing the CBI opposes the petition grounds by contending that the document now sought to be summoned has no bearing whatsoever in respect of merits of the matter. It is only to protract the proceedings further, application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is filed. 10. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties. 11. The concept of fair trial encompasses itself that a fair opportunity must be granted to the accused in participating the trial and trial should not be an empty trial. 12. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. plays a vital role in unearthing the truth. 10. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties. 11. The concept of fair trial encompasses itself that a fair opportunity must be granted to the accused in participating the trial and trial should not be an empty trial. 12. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. plays a vital role in unearthing the truth. It has got vital role to play in any given trial in not only facilitating the parties to place evidence on record, but also empowers the Court at any stage to summon the document, which the parties want to rely upon. 13. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 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." 14. On careful reading of the language employed in the said provision of law, it is crystal clear that application of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would not limit itself to the enquiry or the investigation but it would also extend for trial. Therefore, the trial Court considered the application filed by the petitioners in its proper sense and by virtue of the impugned order, summoned 14 documents out of 27 documents that were sought to be summoned. 15. Therefore, the trial Court considered the application filed by the petitioners in its proper sense and by virtue of the impugned order, summoned 14 documents out of 27 documents that were sought to be summoned. 15. However, the report of inspection conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager, Mumbai from 26.10.2004 to 27.10.2004 whish is now said to be available in Social Banking Division, Central Office 239, Vidhan Veedhi Marg Mumbai was not summoned in the impugned order. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the said report has got a great bearing on the merits of the matter in not only establishing that the accused are innocent of the offences alleged against them, but also would place on record the truth about the alleged misdeeds/irregularities said to have taken place during the period. 17. In fact the petitioners tried their level best to get that document by filing an application under RTI Act. But they failed in their attempt to get the documents obtained from the Social Banking Division, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. Therefore, they sought for summoning the same by filing an application. Even though the said prayer was made, learned trial Judge without assigning any proper reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, rejected the application insofar as remaining 13 documents. One among the same is inspection report submitted by Sri.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager, Mumbai. In fact, in para No.8 of the impugned order, learned trial judge has referred as under: "8. Document No.(a) mentioned in the application is report of inspection conducted by Mr.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager, Mumbai for the period from 26.10.2004 to 27.10.2004 available in Social Banking Division of Union Bank of India, Mumbai. The period mentioned above is only one day and in case, there is any report of Mr.V.K.Jain in respect of the allegations made in this case, A1 can produce the copy of the same." 18. When the application is filed by the petitioners as accused specifically mentioning that they could not produce the report given by Sri.V.K.Jain and their attempt in getting that document failed, directing accused No.1 again to produce copy of the same would not stand to reason. The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain such document through RTI Act remained unsuccessful and therefore there was sufficient ground laid by the petitioners for seeking summoning of the said document. 19. The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain such document through RTI Act remained unsuccessful and therefore there was sufficient ground laid by the petitioners for seeking summoning of the said document. 19. It is admitted fact that copy of inspection report would not be furnished to the accused at that stage as they were not facing any proceedings. 20. The investigation officer ought to have collected such document in the true course of investigation but failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. 21. When investigation agency has not collected such document, opposing the application seeking summoning of the such document cannot be countenanced in law as it would affect the concept of fair trial insofar as petitioners are concerned. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitions need to be allowed in part at least insofar as report of Sri.V.K.Jain as referred to supra is concerned. 23. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Criminal petitions are allowed in part. Application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. which is partly allowed is further allowed in part. Learned trial Judge shall issue summons to the Social Banking Division, Central Office 239, Vidhan Veedhi Marg Mumbai and summon the inspection report furnished by Sri.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager, Mumbai during the period from 26.10.2004 to 27.10.2004 and proceed with the case in accordance with law.