Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that trial courts must ensure compliance with the prescribed format under Section 294(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before calling upon an accused to admit or deny documents. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Special Court to seek a document list from the complainant in the notified form and to provide it to the accused prior to invoking Section 294 of the CrPC.

The petition arose from proceedings pending before the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, designated as the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The respondent Directorate of Enforcement had filed a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, alleging commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

Also Read: “Removal with Superannuation Benefits Does Not Forfeit Pension if Employee Is Otherwise Eligible: Supreme Court Affirms Right Under Clause 6(b) and Pension Regulations”

At the stage of recording prosecution evidence, the Special Judge passed an order dated 11.12.2024 invoking Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the accused to admit or deny the documents filed by the complainant. The accused petitioners, in response, moved an application objecting to the application of Section 294 CrPC on procedural grounds.

It was contended before the Special Court that the State Government had not prescribed any form as required under sub-section (2) of Section 294 of the CrPC, and thus, the provision could not be invoked. The petitioners submitted that, in absence of such prescribed form, the list of documents annexed with the complaint could not be treated as the statutory list under Section 294.

The Special Court, however, declined the application by order dated 20.02.2025. The Court reasoned that the complainant had already submitted a list of documents with the complaint, complete with document particulars, and that soft copies of the same had been furnished to the accused. It further recorded that if the defence had any difficulty in identifying or understanding any document, they were free to seek clarifications.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. They argued that the Special Court had failed to consider the mandatory requirement of a form prescribed by the Government and that invocation of Section 294 CrPC suo motu by the Court, without a formal application by the prosecution, was impermissible.

The High Court examined the nature and scope of Section 294 of the CrPC. It noted that the provision had been introduced in the Central Code and was absent in the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of the provision, as recorded by the High Court, is to streamline proceedings by dispensing with formal proof of documents whose genuineness is not disputed by the opposing party.

The Court noted the requirement of procedural compliance under Section 294(2), which mandates that the list of documents to be admitted or denied must be presented in a prescribed form.

Significantly, during the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners brought to the Court’s notice a government notification dated 17.02.2025 issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which contains provisions corresponding to Section 294 of the CrPC. The notification, issued by the Home Department of Jammu and Kashmir, provides a specific format titled "Form of List of Documents" for use under Section 330 of BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 294 of the CrPC.

The Court recorded: “The controversy that this Court has been called upon to determine is as to whether the list of documents as contemplated under Section 294 of the CrPC is different from the list of documents as is annexed with the charge-sheet or complaint.”

It further noted: “The second issue, which is required to be determined is, as to whether, in the absence of any form prescribed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of Section 294(2) of the CrPC, the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC can be invoked.”

Referring to the text of Section 294 CrPC, the Court stated: “It clearly follows from the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC that formal proof of a document is not required once its genuineness is admitted by the adverse party.”

Citing precedent, the Court noted: “The Supreme Court has, in the case of Ashok Daga vs Directorate of Enforcement, held that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of a document produced by the prosecution cannot be stated to be prejudicial to the rights of the accused.”

Regarding the requirement of a prescribed form, the Court recorded: “The same appears to be untenable because 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.”

“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.”

The Court referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court and stated: “To our mind, Section 294 (1) in particular providing for insertion of the description of the document in the list to be prepared either by the prosecution or the accused for calling upon either party to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents must be held to be mandatory.”

“The documents which are not included in the list contemplated by Section 294 (1) cannot be put forth for admission or denial nor can be exhibited or read in evidence without proof.”

It stated: “In fact, the Supreme Court has, in the case of Sonu alias Amar vs State of Haryana, observed that the documents have to be included in a list and the other side has to be given an opportunity to admit or deny the genuineness of each document.”

The Court then examined the relevance of the recent notification issued under Section 330 of BNSS: “With the issuance of the afore-quoted notification by the Government… there cannot be any doubt to the fact that list of documents contemplated under section 294 (1) of CrPC 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 vide notification dated 17.02.2025… is required to be adhered to by the trial courts.”

Also Read: “Blanket Protection Cannot Be Granted Based on Vague Allegations”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Observing No ‘Reasonable Apprehension of Arrest’

It concluded: “It is, however, made clear that intention of the legislature is not to compel or bind the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution, but the said provision only provides a mechanism for admission of certain documents in evidence without their formal proof.”

The Court issued the following final direction:

“In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of 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 17.02.2025 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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI

Case Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 230/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar

[Read/Download order]