The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has observed that subsection (1) of Section 294 of the CrPC mandates that the particulars of the document sought to be admitted or denied have to be included in a list. The High Court further explained that the list mentioned in Section 294 (2) cannot be the same list which is annexed to the charge-sheet/complaint in the form of an index.

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge), whereby the application of the petitioners seeking a direction not to invoke Section 294 of the CrPC during the trial of the case pending before the Special Court had been declined.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “...subsection (1) of Section 294 of the CrPC clearly mandates that the particulars of the document sought to be admitted or denied have to be included in a list. This means that the list should contain particulars of only those documents that are sought to be put to the adverse party for admission or denial. This list can also be the list of documents filed by the defence which an accused seeks to put to the prosecution for admission or denial. So, the list mentioned in Section 294 (2) of the CrPC cannot be the same list which is annexed to the charge-sheet/complaint in the form of index.”

Advocate Ayushman Kotwal represented the Petitioner, while DSGI Vishal Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) had been filed by the respondent against the petitioners, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4. The said complaint was pending before the Court of Special Judge for PMPLA cases (Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu). At the stage of prosecution evidence, the Special Judge passed an order calling upon the petitioners/accused to admit or deny the documents relied upon by the respondent/complainant by invoking powers under Section 294 of the CrPC.

However, the petitioners moved an application before the Court of Special Judge, with a prayer not to invoke Section 294.

It was pleaded by the petitioners/accused that before invoking the provisions contained in Section 294, the prosecution has to include the documents sought to be admitted or denied in a list, in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government as required under Section 294(2) of the Cr.PC. The Special Judge, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order, declining the prayer of the petitioners.

Reasoning

Referring to section 294 of the CrPC, the Bench explained that the Court can call upon to admit or deny the genuineness of documents filed before it by the prosecution or by the accused, but such documents have to be included in a list providing for the particulars of each document. In terms of subsection (2) of Section 294 of the CrPC, the State Government has to prescribe a form of list in which the documents sought to be admitted or denied by the prosecution or the defence are entered, whereas, according to subsection (3) where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, the same may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed.

“It is well within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to invoke the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC, of course, after following the procedure prescribed therein. No formal application from either the prosecution or the defence in this regard is needed. The object of this provision is only to avoid unnecessary delay which is caused in proving even those documents which are otherwise admitted by the parties. This helps the trial Courts in expediting the trial. The trial Court is definitely within its powers to invoke the said provision and, in fact, it is incumbent upon the Courts holding criminal trials to make use of the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC”, it said.

The Bench further held that subsection (1) of Section 294 of the CrPC mandates that the particulars of the document sought to be admitted or denied have to be included in a list. The list should contain particulars of only those documents that are sought to be put to the adverse party for admission or denial. This list can also be the list of documents filed by the defence which an accused seeks to put to the prosecution for admission or denial. So, the list mentioned in Section 294 (2) of the CrPC cannot be the same list which is annexed to the charge-sheet/complaint in the form of index, it added.

“So it cannot be stated that the index annexed to the charge-sheet/complaint is the same as the list of documents contemplated under subsection (1) of Section 294 of the CrPC…Thus, a separate list of documents, containing particulars thereof in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 294 (1) of the CrPC is required to be prepared and exchanged with the adverse party before calling upon the said party to admit or deny the documents contained in the said list”, it clarified.

The Bench noted that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in exercise of its powers conferred under subsection (2) of Section 330 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023, which is in pari meteria with Section 294 of the CrPC, has issued Notification prescribing therein the "form of list of documents". It was noticed that with the issuance of this notification by the Government in terms of subsection (2) of Section 330 of the BNSS, the list of documents contemplated under section 294 (1) is different from the list of documents annexed with the charge sheet/ complaint. “Since the prescription of a form relating to list of documents to be prepared by the prosecution and the accused for the purpose of admission/denial is a procedural aspect, therefore, the Form of list of documents notified by the Government”, it added.

The Bench thus disposed of the petition with a request to the Special Judge to call upon the complainant to prepare a list of documents sought to be admitted/denied by the petitioners/accused in the format notified vide S.O 40 dated February 17, 2025 and exchange the same with the petitioners/accused before calling upon them to admit/deny the said documents, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC.

Cause Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement (Case No.: CRM(M) No.230/2025)

Click here to read/download Order





Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjay Dhar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.