Whether the court can permit Accused to Exhibit Documents as per S.294 CrPC, Already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature?

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.