ORDER : (Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.) Accused No.20 in Spl.C.C.No.141/2021, on the file of Special court for trial of NIA Cases, (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), challenging the order of dismissing his application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C., by the special court. 2. We have heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned special counsel for NIA. 3. The petitioner, in his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. sought a direction to NIA to produce the voluntary statements of the accused persons and statements of 27 police personnel and 24 public witnesses recorded by the state police, the statements of protected witnesses recorded before 3rd November 2020, and video clipping shown to LW-52 while recording his statement. The case in which the petitioner is accused No.20 pertains to an incident of a large scale rioting and committing such other crimes in and around Kadugondanahalli Police Station on 11.08.2020. The genesis of the incident is said to be a derogatory remark made against Prophet Mohammed on the facebook by one Naveen. FIR in Crime No.229/2020 was initially registered at K.G.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 333, 427, 436 read with section 149 of IPC and section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The investigation was subsequently taken over by NIA and filed charge sheet. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that NIA has not produced the voluntary statements of the accused recorded by the state police, the statements of 27 police officers and 24 public witnesses recorded by the state police, statement of protected witnesses recorded prior to 03.11.2020 and video clipping shown to LW-52. All these materials are intentionally concealed to suppress the true nature and exact facts of the incident, and therefore it is necessary that the NIA is to be directed to produce them. 5. All these materials are intentionally concealed to suppress the true nature and exact facts of the incident, and therefore it is necessary that the NIA is to be directed to produce them. 5. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing on lines with the contents of the application, referred to a report submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor relating progress in the investigation to submit that in part II of the report, there is a reference to all the statements of the witnesses and the accused, as mentioned in section 91 application and suppression of the same by NIA has seriously prejudiced the interest of the petitioner. He submitted that the special court has erred in dismissing the application and therefore the writ petition is to be allowed. 6. But it is the argument of Sri P.Prasanna Kumar that after NIA took over investigation, it proceeded independently and filed the charge sheet based on materials collected by it. The allegations made by the petitioner in his application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. are false; NIA produced all the materials collected by it along with the charge sheet. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ], he argued that section 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by an accused for production of documents before framing of charges. If in this background, the special court dismissed the application there is no illegality in the impugned order and therefore writ petition deserves dismissal. 7. Keeping in view the points of arguments, we hold that though in part II of the report as to progress in the investigation submitted by the special public prosecutor, there is a reference to voluntary disclosures made by the accused persons, recording of the statements of 27 police officers and other 24 witnesses etc., it appears that those voluntary disclosures, and statements of police officers and witnesses were not part of independent investigation undertaken by the NIA. And in case they were made part of investigation conducted by NIA, the accused must have been provided with those materials along with the charge sheet. And in case they were made part of investigation conducted by NIA, the accused must have been provided with those materials along with the charge sheet. If they are not enclosures to the charge sheet, the petitioner cannot claim their production, Section 173(6) of Cr.P.C. provides that a police officer may request the magistrate not to grant copy of any statement or any part of it to the accused if he is of the opinion that any part of the statement is not relevant or its disclosure is not essential in the interest of justice or inexpedient in the public interest. In that event according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2021) 10 SCC 598 , a list of the documents the copies of which are not furnished to the accused has to be given to him. Here it is not the case of the petitioner that the statements and video clippings were the part of the charge sheet filed by NIA; he states that they were part of investigation conducted by the State Police prior to NIA taking over investigation. And he requires the same at a stage prior to framing of the charge. It is held by the Supreme Court in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra) that 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. 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. 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. 8. Sri. Mohammad Tahir has brought to our notice an order passed by learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.19012/2021 where a direction was given to NIA to furnish documents as sought for by the petitioners therein. We find that the judgment of Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi was not brought to the notice of learned single judge. We could have certainly directed the NIA to provide a list of documents and statements collected by the State Police if they had been made part of charge sheet filed by NIA, but investigation made by NIA was independent. Therefore the Special Court is justified in rejecting the application and therefore we dismiss the writ petition. 9. However we give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under section 91 Cr.P.C. after the charges are framed or during trial for production of statements and video clippings if they are useful for his defence.