Section 91 document summons is discretionary; refusal was upheld as interlocutory and not shown unreasonable.

An application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an enabling and discretionary request for production of documents or things, to be used only when necessary or desirable for the inquiry, trial or other proceeding. That discretion must be exercised judicially, and the refusal to summon documents at the cross-examination stage was not shown to be demonstrably unreasonable where the complainant said the source documents were unavailable. The order rejecting the Section 91 request was treated as interlocutory in character, so revision was not maintainable and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was an interlocutory order not amenable to revision, and whether interference with the trial court's refusal to summon the requested documents was warranted.

Analysis: Section 91 confers an enabling and discretionary power on the court to summon documents or things when their production is necessary or desirable for the inquiry, trial or other proceeding. That discretion is to be exercised judicially and not as a matter of course. The refusal to summon documents at the stage of cross-examination, where the complainant stated that the alleged source documents were not available, did not disclose any demonstrable unreasonableness in the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The revisional court was also justified in treating the order passed on the Section 91 application as interlocutory in nature and therefore not revisable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the Section 91 application failed, and no ground for interference with the revisional court's view on maintainability was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is interlocutory in character, and the court's discretion to summon documents under that provision will not be interfered with unless it is shown to have been exercised in a demonstrably unreasonable manner.

---