Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 19.03.2025
Pronounced on: 03.04.2025
CRM(M) No.230/2025
1. Suresh Kumar Rekhi, Age 59 years
S/o late Om Prakash Rekhi
resident of House No. 14
Saini Enclave, Sarore Samba
2. Kumud Rekhi
wife of Suresh Kumar Rekhi
resident of House No. 14,
Saini Enclave Sarore, Samba
....... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement .........Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has
challenged order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special Judge’)
whereby the application of the petitioners seeking a direction not to
invoke Section 294 of the CrPC during trial of the case pending before
the Special Court, has been declined.
2 It appears that a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as the
‘PMLA’) has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners,
alleging the commission of offences under Section 3 and 4 of the said
2 CRM(M) No.230/2025
Act and the said complaint is pending before the Court of Special Judge
for PMPLA cases (Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu). It further appears
that, at the stage of prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge
passed an order on 11.12.2024, 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 of the Cr.PC. In the said application,
it was pleaded by the petitioners/accused that before invoking the
provisions contained in Section 294 of the Cr.PC, 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. It was contended before the learned Special
Judge that no such form has been prescribed by the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir as yet and, therefore, the provisions contained in
Section 294 of the Cr.PC cannot be invoked.
3 The learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, passed
the impugned order, declining the prayer of the petitioners. In the
impugned order, it has been observed by the learned Special Judge that
the objection raised by the petitioners is not tenable, as the list of
documents has already been placed on record by the
complainant/respondent along with the complaint, wherein the
particulars of the documents relied upon have been entered and soft
copies thereof have already been provided to the petitioners. It has also
been observed by the Special Judge that the defence can always seek
3 CRM(M) No.230/2025
clarification in case of any difficulty in indentifying any document or
understanding contents thereof.
4 The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the
ground that the Special Judge has not addressed the question as to
whether the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has prescribed any
form as contemplated under section 294 (2) of the CrPC and, as such, it
has fallen into error by observing that the list of documents as
contemplated under section 294(2) of the CrPC is the same as the list
annexed with the charge sheet/complaint. It has also been contended that
it was not open to the learned Special Judge to invoke the provisions
contained in Section 294 of the CrPC suo moto without an application
from the prosecution. According to the petitioners, the prescription of a
form by the Government, in terms of subsection (2) of Section 294 of
the CrPC is mandatory, and unless such a form is prescribed, the
provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC cannot be invoked.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
6 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. 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.
4 CRM(M) No.230/2025
7 In order to find an answer to the aforesaid two issues, it
would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 294
of the CrPC, which read 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 may
be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not
disputed, such document may be read in evidence in
any 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.
8 From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the
Court can call upon to admit or deny 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) of Section 294 of the
CrPC, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, the
same may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings
5 CRM(M) No.230/2025
without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be
signed.
9 There was no corresponding provision available in the
Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, and this provision has
been introduced in the Central Cr.P.C for the first time. The said
provision provides for a mechanism for admission and denial of
documents, more or less on the same pattern as is prevailing in civil
cases. It is intended to avoid wastage of time in proving a document
whose genuineness is not disputed or denied by the accused where the
document has been produced by the prosecution or by the prosecution
when the document is filed by the accused and is admitted by the
prosecution. 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. The provision is
applicable to all documents filed either by the prosecution or the
accused, irrespective of their nature and character.
10 The Supreme Court has, in the case of Ashok Daga vs
Directorate of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 8535, decided on
12.07.2024 ), which has been relied upon by the learned Special Judge,
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, nor does it violate the right of an accused
guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. So, the contention of
the petitioners that the Special Judge could not have invoked the
provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC suo moto without an
6 CRM(M) No.230/2025
application from the prosecution is not tenable. 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.
11 So far as the question as to the nature of form in which the
documents sought to be admitted or denied are to be entered is
concerned, it is to be noted that in subsection (1) of Section 294 of the
CrPC, it is clearly indicated that every document sought to be put to
admission or denial has to be included in a list and, particulars of every
such document have to be mentioned. Subsection (2) of Section 294 of
the CrPC mandates that the State Government has to prescribe the said
form. The contention of the prosecution, which has been accepted by the
Special Judge is, that the list of documents annexed with the charge-
sheet/compliant, which provides particulars of the documents, can be a
substitute for the list as contemplated in Section 294 of the CrPC. 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. This means that the
7 CRM(M) No.230/2025
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.
12 It is quite possible that the prosecution or even the Court
would not require every document or chit of paper annexed with the
charge-sheet/complaint to be put to the accused for his admission or
denial. There may be documents like copies of Court orders, remand
orders and other immaterial documents annexed to a complaint/charge-
sheet which may not be required to put for admission/denial of the
accused. These documents generally find a mention in the index of the
charge-sheet/complaint, but the same may not be required to be put to
admission/denial of the accused. 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.
13 The aforesaid aspect of the matter was considered by a
Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Ajay Dayaram, 2014 SCC Online Bom 14. The
Division Bench after noticing the provisions contained in Section 294 of
the CrPC observed as under:
“33 The aforesaid section was introduced by amendment
after year 1970. Section 294 Cr.P.C was enacted with a
8 CRM(M) No.230/2025view that the prosecution evidence may be shortened and
the prosecution may not be required to prove the
documents which are admitted by accused persons. The
intention of the Legislature was not to bind the accused
persons or force him to admit or deny the genuineness of
the documents produced by the prosecution that is why the
Court would not be justified in passing the order directing
accused to admit or deny the documents, obviously since it
would violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Be that as it may, the question that arises for our
consideration relates to the procedure, which must be
followed while insisting for admission or denial of the
genuineness of the documents. 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. In other words, for making use of or
for asking for effective operation of section 294 (1), (2) or
(3), the particulars of such documents must be included in
the list. In other words, 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 as contemplated
by Section 294 (3) of the Cr.P.C. This is to prevent either
the prosecution or the accused to push a document for
clandestinely exhibiting it by admission and then read in
evidence. We, therefore, reiterate that under section 294
(1), (2) and (3), only the documents included in the list
either by the prosecution or the accused and submitted for
admission or denial can be processed for putting the
sanctity as legal evidence contemplated by Section 294
(3) and not the documents which are not included in the
list by either of the party”.
14 From the aforesaid analysis of law on the subject, it is clear
that the list prescribed under Section 294(1) of the CrPC is different
from the list of documents annexed with the
charge-sheet/complaint. The inclusion of documents sought to be
admitted or denied by an adverse party is necessary to give notice to
that party, and providing a copy of the said list to the adverse party is
9 CRM(M) No.230/2025
necessary to ensure that the said party is aware of the documents the said
party has been called upon to admit or deny. In fact, the Supreme Court
has, in the case of Sonu alias Amar vs State of Haryana, (2017) 8
SCC 570, 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. 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.
15 The next issue that comes to the fore is as to whether, in the
absence of a prescribed form in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 294
of the CrPC, the provisions contained therein can be invoked.
16. It is not clear as to whether that the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir has prescribed any form in terms of sub-section (2) of
Section 294 of the CrPC, but it has been brought to the notice of this
Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir, in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-
section (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 dated 17.02.2025 prescribing therein the “form of list of
documents”. The said notification reads as under:
“Government of Jammu and Kashmir
Home Department
Civil Secretariat, J&K.
Notification
Jammu, the 17th of February, 2025
10 CRM(M) No.230/2025S.O 40. In exercise of powers conferred under the sub-section (2) of
section 330 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 read with
S.O No. 2506 (E) dated 28.06.2024 of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir hereby
declares that the list of documents as mentioned in the sub section (1)
of Section 330 of the Act ibid. shall be prepared in the manner and
format as under:
“FORM OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS’
In the court of ___________District ____________case FIR No.
___________ of 20____________under section ________Police
Station___________vs. ______________(Accused)List of documents produced on behalf of ____________ on
DD/MM/YYYY.
Sr. Descrip Date of Action taken on the document
No. tion of docume
the nt, if
docume any Whether if Whether if Disputed,
nt admitted admitted, disputed by whether
by the the the defence/ intended to be
defence/ exhibit prosecution proved under
Prosecutio mark put normal
n. on the procedure of
documen Examination/
t cross-
examination of
witness
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
Sd/
(Chandrakar Bharti) IAS
Principal Secretary to the Govt."
17. With the issuance of the afore-quoted notification by the
Government in terms of sub section (2) of Section 330 of the BNSS,
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
11 CRM(M) No.230/2025vide notification dated 17.02.2025 (supra) is required to be adhered to
by the trial courts even while invoking the provisions of Section 294 of
the CrPC, which is in pari materia with Section 330 of BNSS. Needless
to mention that the said provision has been enacted with a view that the
prosecution as well as the defence evidence may be shortened and those
documents that are admitted by the parties are not required to be proved
by calling the witnesses. 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.
18. 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.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Jammu
03.04.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether order is reportable: Yes/No
KARAM CHAND
2025.04.04 09:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link