Charanjit Talwar, J. :- The facts, so far as they are relevant for the decision of this petition, are stated in my order of July 29, 1980, by which I had referred the case to a larger Bench. Before analysing the rival contentions, the two questions, which were formulated for consideration, may be noted :

"First - Whether the post-mortem reports and the medico legal examination report are public documents, and,

Second - Whether the accused are entitled to receive copies of the public documents on which the prosecution is relying during investigation of the case."

2. Bawa Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has fairly conceded before us that the accused would be entitled to copies of those documents during investigation of the case only if the documents are held to be public documents. He, therefore, limited his arguments to the first question. Mr. Dinesh Chand Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner, besides controverting the submission on that question, urged that even if the documents are held to be so, the accused-respondent is not entitled to receive copies of the same till such time a report under S.173 of the Code is filed by the prosecution. He furt