Judgment N.K.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 14th October, 1993, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby he dismissed two petitions filed by the petitioner-accused-one calling for certain documents under Section 91, Cr.P.C. and the other for his discharge under Section 245, Cr. P. C. 3. I have perused the impugned order which is a detailed one in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. So far the petition filed calling for certain documents is concerned the learned Judicial Magistrate in course of the order has specifically stated that no other document was required for the purposes of framing of charge, In other words, it is open to the petitioner-accused to file a petition calling for such documents in course of the trial and it shall be open to the learned trial Court to consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. However, in any view of the matter the impugned order rejecting the petition appears to be interlocutory in nature and revision against such an order is not maintainable. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate has referred to the materials available for framing charge against the accused and in view of that it is difficult to take the view that no case had been made out against the accused as to entitle him to be discharged in the case under sub-section (1) of Section 245, Cr. P. C. 5. In the circumstances while this application is dismissed it may be observed that this Court which did not go deep into the matter has expressed no opinion whatsoever with regard to the merits of the case and if shall be open to the petitioner to raise all points available to him at an appropriate 6tage before the trial Court in accordance with law. With these observations, this application is dismissed,