In order to duly appreciate the provisions of
Section 294 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to refer to the
provision which is reproduced as under:
“294. No formal proof of certain
documents.—(1) Where any document is
filed before any Court by the
prosecution or the accused, the
particulars of every such document
shall be included in a list and the
prosecution or the accused, as the case
may be, or the pleader for the
prosecution or the accused, if any,
shall be called upon to admit or deny
the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in
such form as be prescribed by the State
Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any
document is not disputed, such document
may be read in evidence in inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this
Code without proof of the signature of
the person to whom it purports to be
signed:
Provided that the Court may, in its
discretion, require such signature to
be proved.”{Para 4}
5) After perusal thereof, it cannot be doubted
that in case any document has been filed by the
prosecution or the accused in any Court, such
document is required to be included in a list. The
genuineness of the documents included in the list
can be ascertained by the Court by calling upon the
prosecution or the accused, as the case may be. If
such document is not disputed, it can be read in
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.
without proving the signature of the person to whom
it purports to be. As per proviso thereto, if
necessary, it is on the discretion of the Court to
require such signature to be proved, while applying
the provision of Section 294 (3) Cr.P.C.
6) In the facts of the present case, it is clear
that the documents as sought to be marked as
exhibits by the appellant are part of the
chargesheet and of documents produced by the
prosecution. The appellant, through averments made
in the application, contends that these documents
were included in the list of documents of
prosecution. Learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the CBI, disputes this fact, but on
prima facie examination of the record, it suggests
that the documents sought by accused formed part of
the list of documents produced by CBI. Nevertheless,
we reserve the CBI’s liberty to raise this objection
at the appropriate stage before court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1383 of 2026)
R. GANESH Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Dated: April 27, 2026.
1) Leave Granted.
2) The appellant has preferred this appeal being
aggrieved by order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the
High Court of Madras of Madurai Bench dismissing
Criminal Revision1 filed by him against order dated
13.10.2025 passed by III Additional District Judge,
Tiruchirappalli, rejecting his petition2 under
Section 294 Cr.P.C.3 during pendency of the Criminal
Appeal.
3) For the purpose of referring to the nature of
the finding and the manner in which the finding has
1 Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 1481 of 2025
2 Crl.M.P. No. 3481 of 2025 in Crl.A. No. 134 of 2019
3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
been recorded by the High Court, it is necessary to
refer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order impugned:
“5. Section 294 Cr.PC contemplates that
where any document is filed before any
Court by the prosecution or the
accused, the particulars of every such
document shall be included in a list
and the parties are to be directed to
say whether they are admitting or
denying the genuineness of the
documents.
6. Considering the nature and scope of
the above provision, I am at loss to
understand as to how the petition
seeking permission to mark the
documents is maintainable under Section
294 of Cr.PC. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner
now relied on Section 296 of Cr.PC.,
and cited the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs, Naib Din reported in (2001)
8 SCC 578, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that Section 296 of
Cr.PC., contemplates that the evidence
of any person whose evidence is of a
formal character, the Court can direct
him to file an affidavit and the
relevant passage is extracted
hereunder:
6. We feel that the view adopted
by the learned Single judge was
too stilted for approval. At
any rate, acquittal of the
accused even without affording
an opportunity to the
prosecution to make up the lapse
(if it was a lapse) only
resulted in miscarriage of
justice. Presently we may
consider whether it is necessary
for the prosecution, as an
indispensable course to examine
the police official who played
only a formal role during
investigation. In this context
Section 296 of the Code can be
read:
(1) The evidence of any person
whose evidence is of a formal
character may be given by
affidavit and may, subject to
all just exceptions, be read in
evidence in any inquiry, trial
or other proceeding under this
Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks
fit, and shall, on the
application of the prosecution
or the accused, summon and
examine any such person as to
the facts contained in his
affidavits.”
4) In order to duly appreciate the provisions of
Section 294 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to refer to the
provision which is reproduced as under:
“294. No formal proof of certain
documents.—(1) Where any document is
filed before any Court by the
prosecution or the accused, the
particulars of every such document
shall be included in a list and the
prosecution or the accused, as the case
may be, or the pleader for the
prosecution or the accused, if any,
shall be called upon to admit or deny
the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in
such form as be prescribed by the State
Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any
document is not disputed, such document
may be read in evidence in inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this
Code without proof of the signature of
the person to whom it purports to be
signed:
Provided that the Court may, in its
discretion, require such signature to
be proved.”
5) After perusal thereof, it cannot be doubted
that in case any document has been filed by the
prosecution or the accused in any Court, such
document is required to be included in a list. The
genuineness of the documents included in the list
can be ascertained by the Court by calling upon the
prosecution or the accused, as the case may be. If
such document is not disputed, it can be read in
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.
without proving the signature of the person to whom
it purports to be. As per proviso thereto, if
necessary, it is on the discretion of the Court to
require such signature to be proved, while applying
the provision of Section 294 (3) Cr.P.C.
6) In the facts of the present case, it is clear
that the documents as sought to be marked as
exhibits by the appellant are part of the
chargesheet and of documents produced by the
prosecution. The appellant, through averments made
in the application, contends that these documents
were included in the list of documents of
prosecution. Learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the CBI, disputes this fact, but on
prima facie examination of the record, it suggests
that the documents sought by accused formed part of
the list of documents produced by CBI. Nevertheless,
we reserve the CBI’s liberty to raise this objection
at the appropriate stage before court.
7) We have further perused the findings as
recorded by the High Court relying upon the judgment
in State of Punjab Vs Naib Din (2001) 8 SCC 578. The said judgment deals with the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.
which relates to the evidence of formal character on
affidavit; it has nothing to do with the case
wherein no formal proof of certain documents are
required. It is needless to express that Section 294
Cr.P.C. deals with documentary evidence while
Section 296 Cr.P.C. deals with the formal character
of some evidence which is on affidavit. Therefore,
the ratio of the judgment in the case of Naib Din
(supra) is, in fact, not applicable, in particular,
while rejecting the application under Section 294
Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to uphold the
spirit of the provision, particularly with regard to
the documents for which the application has been
filed. The order has to be passed after ascertaining
the genuineness of such document by admission or
denial or by proof, if any required.
8) In view of the foregoing, we are inclined to
set aside the order passed by the High Court and
remit the matter and direct that the application
filed by the appellant under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
during the pendency of the appeal shall be
reconsidered and decided afresh by the High Court.
The respondent is permitted to raise the objections
as available to them under the law, and the Court is
at liberty to decide the same afresh uninfluenced by
the order impugned.
9) As contended by learned Additional Solicitor
General that this application has been filed with an
intent to delay the decision in the appeal. In this
regard, it is suffice to say that the Court may
proceed in the matter and decide the appeal on
merits as expeditiously as possible after taking
decision on such application.
10) With the aforesaid observations, the present
appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s),
if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………….,J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
……………………………………………………….,J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]
New Delhi;
April 27, 2026.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment