ORDER : (VENKATESH NAIK T., J.) Crl.P.No.101050/2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 91 of the Criminal procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) in S.C.No.68/2010, whereas Crl.P.No.102901/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., in S.C.No.68/2010 and consequently, to allow the application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases are as under: Crl.P.No.101050/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners/accused persons had filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., to summon the Director of Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, to produce the answer sheets of the deceased-Shilpa, who wrote in the Kannada language, and studied II PUC at Government Girls Pre-University College, Ballari, in the year 2004. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that since the Investigating Officer collected Exs.P.41 to P.43 and sent to them for expert opinion and a Scientific Officer, after conducting hand writing examination, gave a detailed report vide Ex.P.68. Thus, it would not be necessary to summon the PU Board to produce the answer sheets of deceased-Shilpa. Hence, petitioners have filed this petition. Crl.P.No.102901/2023 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner to summon the witness with a direction to the produce the attendance Register of accused No.3-by name Angadi Shankar, who was working as Senior Manager, H.R and Admin in November 2008, in JSW Energy (Rathnagiri) Limited. However, the trial Court rejected the said application, on the ground that the accused sought attendance register of witness. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and leaned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 5. Sofar as Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, the Court may summon to produce documents and other things. The contents of the Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is reads as under: “91. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and leaned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 5. Sofar as Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, the Court may summon to produce documents and other things. The contents of the Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is 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.” 6. Whereas, in the instant case, the accused persons sought to summon the Director of the Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, to produce the answer sheets of the deceased-Shilpa, who wrote in the Kannada language and studied II PUC, at Government Girls Pre-University College, Ballari, in the year 2004. Whereas, the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, collected Exs.P.41 to P.43. Ex.P.41 is the letter addressed to the Principal of Smt.Allum Suumangalamma Memorial College for Women, Ballari, by the deceased requesting to issue Transfer Certificate and Marks Card of II PUC. The Investigating Officer also collected the hand writing of deceased-Shilpa written on Long Note Book Ex.P.42 and Short Note Book Ex.P.43 and the same were sent for expert opinion and the Scientific Officer, has issued his detailed report as per Ex.P.68. 7. The Investigating Officer also collected the hand writing of deceased-Shilpa written on Long Note Book Ex.P.42 and Short Note Book Ex.P.43 and the same were sent for expert opinion and the Scientific Officer, has issued his detailed report as per Ex.P.68. 7. It is not the case of the petitioners/accused persons that Exs.P.41 to P.43 are disputed documents. Therefore, it can be presumed that the contents of documents viz; Exs.P.41 to P.43 are admitted documents and the Scientific Officer has compared the admitted documents with the disputed documents and issued his report vide Ex.P.68. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/accused persons in allowing application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., hence, the learned Sessions Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Sofar as an application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, the petitioner/accused No.3, had requested the trial Court to issue summons and to produce his attendance register, while he was working in the company at the relevant point of time. 9. Under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., if the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. 10. Perused the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, has no where opined that the application filed by accused No.3 is for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. 11. On the contrary, petitioner/accused No.3 has established that since he has raised a plea of alibi and in order to substantiate his contention, now he is seeking his attendance Register for the relevant period from the company, where he worked for the relevant period. Hence, the petitioner/accused has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition.No.101050/2023 is hereby dismissed. ii. The criminal petition.No.102901/2023 is hereby allowed. iii. Hence, the petitioner/accused has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition.No.101050/2023 is hereby dismissed. ii. The criminal petition.No.102901/2023 is hereby allowed. iii. The order dated 22.08.2023 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in S.C.No.68/2010, is hereby set aside and the application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., by accused No.3, is hereby allowed. iv. The trial Court is directed to issue a summons to the witness to produce the attendance register pertaining to the November, 2008 and to direct the said witness to give evidence in accordance with law. v. The Registry is directed to send copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court.