JUDGMENT

Hepworth J:

In this case the accused was charged in the Magistrate's Court, Penang, with two charges of forgery under s. 465 of the Penal Code, offences within the criminal jurisdiction of such Court, in one of which the document he was alleged to have forged was specified as "a letter dated 13 January 1962 written by you to the RAF. Accounting Officer, Butterworth" and in the other of which as "cheque No B 008024 by making a false endorsement on the back".

Prior to the accused being charged the police had searched his house and taken away a number of documents, among which was the letter referred to in the first charge.

After the accused had been charged in Court his Counsel asked to be allowed to inspect the documents seized by the police and take copies of them. This request was opposed by the prosecution. In the end the Magistrate made an order that since the documents belonged to the accused he was entitled to photostat copies of them, but was not entitled to the originals. The Deputy Public Prosecutor thereupon filed an appeal against this order of the Magistrate. (Later "in order to expedite justice and as a matter of Courtesy" the prosecution supplied photostat copies of the documents which had been in the possession of the accused to his solicitor, but without prejudice to this appeal).

The Deputy Public Prosecutor was dissatisfied with the order made by the learned Magistrate for the supply of photostat copies alleging that he was wrong in law in making the order for the prosecution to supply the defence with copies of the documents taken by the prosecution from the respondent which documents the prosecution intended to use in evidence at the trial of the respondent. He submitted that the defence should not be supplied with photostat copies or any copies of any of the documents in the prosecutor's hands.

The prosecution case was that the accused had acted as the agent of the complainant in certain transactions in connection with a house belonging to the complainant which was let to some Air Force personnel and acting as such agent he had falsely signed her name to the letter referred to in the first charge and her endorsement on the cheque referred to in the two charge. It was the defence case that both the signature on this letter and the endorsement on this cheque were those of the complainant.

The prosecution had had these documents sent to a handwriting expert and in due course a copy of his report under s. 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code was served on the accused. The accused wished to call his own handwriting expert with a view to showing that the signatures were those of the complainant and clearly in order, to do this it was necessary for his handwriting expert to see either the originals or carbon copies.

What the defence in a criminal trial is entitled to and what it is the duty of the prosecution to provide are to be found in ss. 162, 163 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These sections read as follows:-

162. (1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.

(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.

(6) If the accused has been previously convicted of any offence and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court is competent to award, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction s