Section 91 CrPC summons require necessity or desirability shown with particulars; vague document requests and same-case diaries fail.

Section 91 CrPC permits summons for documents only when their production is shown to be necessary or desirable for a just decision; an accused need not disclose the defence, but must still indicate the circumstances showing relevance. A vague claim that documents may reveal the truth is insufficient. The court also noted that the case diary of the same case cannot be summoned because Section 172(3) bars it, while another case diary may be called only on a proper showing of necessity. As the requests for Section 107 proceedings, medical records, and the case diary were either unsupported by particulars or already supplied, the accused failed to justify summoning the records and the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused established that the documents sought under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were necessary or desirable for the trial, and whether the case diary of the present case could be summoned from the prosecution.

Analysis: Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a judicial discretion to summon documents only when their production is shown to be necessary or desirable for a just decision in the case. An accused is not required to reveal the defence, but must indicate the circumstances showing why the documents are needed. A vague assertion that the documents would bring the truth to light is insufficient. The accused cannot seek the case diary of the present case, as Section 172(3) bars such summoning. A case diary of another case may be summoned only if its production is shown to be necessary or desirable, but the present request lacked specific particulars. The proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not shown to be in the custody of the respondent, and the accident register, wound certificate, and case sheets were either already supplied or were sought on an equally vague basis without demonstrating relevance and necessity.

Conclusion: The accused failed to make out a case for summoning the documents. The revision was dismissed.

---