[1] This criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioners bashir Hussesin Peshimn against the order passed by the learned presidency Magistrate 28th Court, Esplanades, Bombay on 5t February 1965, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application of petitioners for a direction that the special prosecutor or the collectors of the central Excise be directed to furnish him with copies of certain statements and documents in their possession or in the alternative to issue a summons under S. 94 of the Criminal procedure code, directing the special prosecutor or the collectors, of central excise to produce such statement, nd documents for his inspection before the inquiry started.

[2] The facts giving rise to the application made by the petitioner to the learned magistrate and the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon may be state, on 3rd August 1964, Shri H.R. Jokhi Assistant collectors of central Excise Marine Preventive Division Central Excise Bombay filed a compliant [being Criminal Case No. 203/W/64] in the court of the learned presidency Magistrate [28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay] Charging the petitioners Bashir Hussesin peshimam [being Accused No.1] and 8 others under S. 120B of the I.P.C. read with S. 167[81] of the Sea customs Act 1878 as amended, under Ss. 167 [81] of the Sea custom and Ss. 109 and 114 I.P.C. under 8[1] and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and under S. 120-B I.P.C. read with Ss. 8[1] and 23 of the Foreign Exchanges Regulation Act reset of 77,600 tolls of gold brought into India at Bombay from pales outside India between July 1960 nd March 1962, in pursuances to conspiracy it appears that prior to the legging of this implant against the petitioners and 8 others under directions of Shri H.R. Jokhi investigation had been carried on the several customs officers and during the course of such investigation, statement of various persons including those of caused were recorded. Similarly those several documents and papers were seize under panchanamas. Inter alia on 10th February 1962 the houses of the Accused No.1 and seized from the houses of accused NO.2 while a motor car bearing Registrant by Mr. Gumaste was seized from near the house petitioner had No documents as such were seized from either of them or from any other accused during the investigation. If further appears that during the course of this investigation reports of the from time to time and notes or notes - sheets in respect thereof submitted by the interior officers to their superior officers. Accused No.1 was arrested on 22nd February 1962, accused No.2 was arrested on 3rd march 1962, accused No.5 was arrest on 14th March 1962, while accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested on 19th April 1962. Accused Nos., 6 and 7 were required to remain present in court on 3rd August 196, when the complaint was filed and they were put under arrest on that day. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 are still absconding. It further appears that before filling the complaint, adjudication proceedings for confiscation of the gold were undertaken for shows causes notices were issued and served open some of the accused and in particular upon the petitioner, in which diverse allegations up were made against the petitioners and in the correspondences that ensued between the petitioner and / or his Advocate on the one hand and the Customs Authorities and / or their Advocate on the one hand the customs Authorities and / or their Advocate on the others, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that he should be on furnished with copies of all the statements of person that had been seized during the course of investigation to ennoble him to show cause why the gold or the motor car should not be confiscated but that request was not acceded to. It further appears that even after his compliant was filed the petitioner through his Advocates letter dated 17th September 1964 inter alia requested for furnishing of copies of all the statements of persons re