Filing List Of Documents In Chargesheet Not Substantial Compliance With S.294 CrPC: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that merely filing a list of documents is not substantial compliance with Section 294 CrPC.

The Court held that it was necessary to give notice to the adverse party by providing them the list of the documents which are sought to be admitted or denied by the adverse party as per the section 330 of BNSS, which is equivalent of section 294 of Crpc, to ensure that the party is aware of the documents the said party has been called upon to admit or deny.

The court was called upon to determine whether the list of documents as contemplated under Section 294 of the CrPC is substantially complied with by an index of documents annexed with the charge sheet or complaint.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that the Court can call upon to admit or deny the 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.

The court said that the special trial court had erred in accepting the list of documents annexed with the charge sheet, providing the particulars of the documents, as a substitute for the list as contemplated in Section 294 Crpc

The court said that it was mandatory that the list of documents filed under 294 Crpc should contain particulars of only those documents that are sought to be put to the adverse party for admission or denial.

The court said there are many documents which find mention in the index of the chargesheet which need not to be put to the accused nor are they also required to and therefore, it cannot act as a substitute to the procedural requirement to the filing of documents under section 294 of the CRPC/ 330 of BNSS.

The court relied on Sonu alias Amar vs State of Haryana, wherein it was held that 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.

The court also noted that Section 330(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suaksha Sanhit, which is in pari meteria with Section 294 of the CrPC, the government of J&K has issued a Notification prescribing therein the "form of list of documents" which has to be followed to comply with the provision.

The court said that taking note of the above notification, there can be no doubt that the fact that the list of documents contemplated under section 294 (1) of CrPC is different from the list of documents annexed with the charge sheet/ complaint.

The court disposed off the petition with a request to the Special Judge to direct the complainant to prepare a list of documents sought to be admitted/denied by the accused in the prescribed format as notified by the government above-noted and provide the same to the petitioner before calling upon them to admit/deny the said documents, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 294 of the CrPC.

BACKGROUND

The petitioners have approached the High Court, challenging an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge. The petitioner objected to the use of Section 294 of the CrPC during their trial for alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The Special Judge had earlier directed the petitioners to admit or deny documents relied upon by the prosecution, invoking Section 294 CrPC. The petitioners argued that this provision could not be applied since the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had not prescribed the mandatory form required under Section 294(2) and a separate list of documents could not be relied upon.

However, the Special Judge dismissed their objections, saying the documents were already part of the complaint and shared with the petitioners.

The petitioner challenged the trial court order requiring the High Court to look into two key issues as to whether list of documents under Section 294 different from what's normally attached to a charge sheet or complaint and also if the official form hasn't been notified by the government, can Section 294 even be used.

APPEARANCE:

Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate For Petitioner

Vishal Sharma DSGI For Respondents

Case-Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140

Click Here To Read/Download Order