Nevaskar, J

[1] Facts giving rise to the present petition of revision are as follows:

The Provident Fund Inspector for Madhya Bharat lodged three different complaints against the petitioners Mohammad Hussain and Akbarali bearing numbers 413, 414 and 415 of 1954. The first two were in respect of offences under Section 14 of the Employee's Provident Funds Act 1952 and Clause 76 of the scheme framed thereunder and third was under Section 406 I.P.C. All these cases were consolidated by an order dated 14-1-1955. On 27-11-1954, the Provident Fund Inspector had moved the Court for an order directing the accused to produce certain Registers and Account-books of the Nazarali Mills. This application was allowed and an intimation of this was given to the learned Counsel for the accused about the order.

On 30-4-1955 the accused Mohammad Hussain applied stating that he received the intimation of the order pertaining to production of registers and account books through his counsel late and did not know of the order personally as he was exempted from appearance. It was further stated that he wanted to raise some legal objection in respect of the complainant's application for production of documents. He therefore prayed for adjournment particularly as his counsel had gone out. The court thereupon passed an order directing the accused to produce the documents and intimating that if this were not done search-warrant would be issued. This order was passed on 30-4-1955.

[2] On 9-5-1955 certain registers were produced and a prayer was made by the accused Mohammad Hussain by an application that he may be allowed to raise legal objections regarding the intended issue of search-warrant.

[3] On 16-5-1955 an application was submitted raising two preliminary objections to the maintainability of these complaints. Firstly it was contended that the said Nazarali Mills were not a controlled industry and secondly the complaints do not set out the fact specifically that the said Mills were a controlled industry. The learned- Magistrate by his order dated 18-7-1955 overruled both these objections. He then directed an issue of search-warrant by an order in the proceeding.

[4] A petition for revision was filed in the Court of Session raising questions determined by the order dated 18-7-1955 and also regarding the production of documents. As regards the latter, aid was sought to be taken of Article 20 of the Constitution.

[5] It appears from the copies filed in the Court of Sessions regarding the impugned order that both the orders of 18-7-1955 were sought to be assailed.

[6] From the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge however it appears that the propriety of the direction for issue of search-warrant was not assailed before him. He considered the points raised, as regards the other order and rejected the petition.

[7] In the present petition to this Court the only point raised is as regards the direction of the court to issue search-warrant under the circumstances of this case after calling upon the accused to produce the documents. However while submitting the copies of the impugned order the copy of the material order for the point raised was not submitted, instead of this copies of the other orders were submitted.

[8] It is clear from these facts that the applicant has failed to attach along with his petition for revision copy of the material order he wanted to challenge. In the copies filed by him there is no reference to production of documents or search-warrant. Rule 13, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Rules of this Court requires the production of copy of the order the correctness or propriety of which is to be challenged before the court. This is not done in this case. The application is liable to be dismissed merely on this ground.

[9] Even apart from this the contention raised by Mr. Sanghi based on Article 20 (3) of the Constitution has no force.

[10] Mr. Sanghi assailed the order of the Magistrate dated 30-4-1955 whereby he gave time to the applicant