note, is that it no where places any embargo upon the prosecution or
accused to file a document at a stage subsequent to filing of the
chargesheet. It only says that if any document is sought to be
produced before the Court, it should be included in the list of the
documents and then the other side should be called upon to either
admit or deny the genuineness of the document. It means by
necessary implication that a document can be filed subsequent to filing
of chargesheet subject to following the procedure prescribed inSection 294. Then, it is not necessary for the accused, who is called
upon to admit or deny the document, to choose either of these options
and he may simply keep silence in respect of the document which may
as well be an expression of his fundamental right under Article 20(3)
of the Constitution of India which says that no person accused of any
offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In case the
accused chooses to deny the document or just remains silent in that
regard, the document cannot be admitted in evidence and it would be
required to be proved in accordance with law, having regard to the
right of the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
However, when the prosecution, which is called upon by the accused,
to admit or deny the document, does neither of the things and chooses
to stay put with the document, a different situation would arise. In
such a case, perspective of the right would change from that of
fundamental to procedural, for, Article 20(3) is available to only those
persons who are accused of any offence and not to those who allege
commission of offence by others. Therefore, a criminal Court would
have to meet silence of the prosecution in respect of a document in a
different way, depending on the nature and contents of the document
and the law of proof of documents applicable to the fact situation. In
other words, facts of each case would trigger the effect of prosecution
silence under Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure. to stay put with the document, a different situation would arise. In
such a case, perspective of the right would change from that of
fundamental to procedural, for, Article 20(3) is available to only those
persons who are accused of any offence and not to those who allege
commission of offence by others. Therefore, a criminal Court would
have to meet silence of the prosecution in respect of a document in a
different way, depending on the nature and contents of the document
and the law of proof of documents applicable to the fact situation. In
other words, facts of each case would trigger the effect of prosecution
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4712 OF 2014
Niwas Keshav Raut,
V
State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 28th JULY, 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)3742
DATE : 28th JULY, 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)3742
