Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) By the order impugned dated 7.10.2010 learned Judicial Magistrate rejected an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
(2.) While pressing this misc. petition, at the threshold, it is submitted by Shri M.C. Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate, that he want to confine his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling the documents dated 29.11.2008 and 26.12.2008 only. The document dated 29.11.2008 is a letter written to the Superintendent of Police (City), Jodhpur on behalf of "Shri Brahman Swarankar Sabha" and its signatories are Sarva Shri Amritlal, Kriparam and Shyam Sunder. The document dated 26.12.2008 is a letter written to Circle Officer (City), Jodhpur on behalf of "Suryanagari Vikas Samiti" and is signed by Sarva Shri Dr. R.N. Bhargava, Laxminarain, Dayal Singh and Dr. Kiran Bhargava.
(3.) By placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi, reported in (2000)5 SCC 679 and Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in (1980)3 SCC 152, it is submitted that a court is having a wide discretion while considering an application seeking production of documents and such discretion may be exercised at any stage and even at the stage of considering a case for taking cognisance of the offence, thus, the trial court erred while rejecting the application on the count that no such application could be granted, while considering a case for taking cognisance of an offence.;