The two respondents were charged with three others for the offence of forgery under sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code read with section 34 of the said Code. In the charge preferred against them, they were alleged to have used dishonestly, a letter of credit for the amount of $ 2.4 million with the following forged documents:--

(i) Bill of Lading;

(ii) Certificate of Origin;

(iiii) Certificate to the effect that the motor tanker "GRACITA" on

which the shipment of 2000 metric tons of palm oil is shipped, is

used exclusively for palm oil conveyance;

(iv) Certificate of Inspection;

(v) Certificate of Weight.

After they were jointly charged in the Sessions Courts, the two respondents Raymond Chia (3rd accused) and Zainal (2nd accused) applied to the President by Miscellaneous Criminal Applications for various documents in the possession of the prosecution including the five documents stated in the charge for their inspection. In the case of Raymond Chia, his application was in general terms. He applied for an order "that the Public Prosecutor do allow the defence an opportunity to inspect and make photostat copies of all documents seized by the Jabatan Peguam Negara and or which are in their possession and/or control in connection with the above criminal case". His ground for making the application was that without a reasonable opportunity of studying the documents, he would not be able to prepare his defence adequately or give proper instructions to his counsel in the conduct of the criminal case. In the case of Zainal, his application was for an order that the Public Prosecutor do deliver to him copies of a long list of specified and unspecified documents comprising of 29 categories in all, including cautioned statement and first information report. The reason for the application as contained in paragraph 10 of his affidavit was that he wanted some of the documents in advance to prepare adequately his defence to the charge and in the event that copies were not supplied to him sufficiently in advance, he would be compelled to seek adjournment to study the documents as and when they were introduced in evidence which would result in a delay of the trial. Both applications did not indicate under what provisions of the law the order to inspect and obtain copies of such documents could be made.

When the two applications came up for hearing before the learned President on June 8, 1982, the prosecution objected to both applications although they rightly did not object to the inspection and supply of the first information report and cautioned statement having regard, no doubt, to the decisions made in Anthony Gomez v Ketua Polis Daerah, Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24 and Khoo Siew Bee & Anor v Ketua Polis, Kuala Lumpur [1979] 2 MLJ 49. The prosecution objection was twofold. First, they argued the respondents did not indicate under what provisions of the law their applications were made. Secondly, if their applications were made under section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they were not made in compliance with the provision of that section due, inter alia, to lack of particularisation. The application of Raymond Chia was made in general terms and did not particularise the documents required, and as for Zainals application, the documents sought were all-embracing and even included documents not seized from him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned President did not allow the applications in toto but his order in favour of the two respondents were confined to the inspection of (1) documents specifically referred to in the charge, and (2) documents removed by the prosecution from the possession of the respondents. In exercising his discretion the learned President relied heavily on the judgment of Hepworth J. in Public Prosecutor v Teoh Choon Teck [1963] MLJ 34. In that case the accused was charged for forgery on two counts. He was alleg