Swadesh Kumar Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2012 Latest Caselaw 2348 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Crl. MC No.1192/2012 & Crl.MA 4261/2012 (stay)

                                               Date of Decision: 11.04.2012
Swadesh Kumar Sharma                                      ...... Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Vipin Kumar Gupta, Advocate

                                   Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation                       ...... Respondent
                         Through:        Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA


M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC preferred by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 24.2.2012 and 16.3.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. The petitioner along with other c-accused persons is facing trial in a CBI case being RC No.9(A)/94. The case is under trial and the prosecution was examining its witnesses. On 24.2.2012, it was observed by learned Special Judge that since there are several documents filed by the prosecution, to reduce the period of trial, the document need to be put for admission/ denial in terms of provisions of Section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code (Code).

3. On 16.3.2012, when the matter was listed for admission and denial, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the admission/ denial of the

documents of prosecution at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. His contention was that since 26 witnesses have already been examined and several documents have already been exhibited, the conduct of admission/ denial of the documents was not permissible and was of no use. It was also contended that invocation of Section 294 of the Code had not been pressed on behalf of CBI before framing of charges nor the previous presiding officer invoked this provision for the purpose of admission/ denial of documents.

4. The learned Special Judge repelled these submissions observing inter alia that Section 294 of the Code does not specify any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of admission/ denial and the same could be invoked at any stage. It was observed that as per sub section (3) of Section 294 of the Code, when the genuineness of the documents was not disputed, such documents could be read in evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceedings. It was observed that it was not necessary to invoke the provisions of Section 294 of the Code before framing of charges as this Section finds place in Chapter XXII of the Code which relate to "EVIDENCE IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS". Relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Ganpat Rao Ji Suryavanshi v The State of Maharashtra [1980 Crl.L. J 853(1) and Shaikh Fard Hussain Saab v The State of Maharashtra [(1981) 83 Bomlr 278] it was held that the admission /denial of the documents in terms of Section 294 Cr.PC, is a statutory duty cast on the Court and the provisions mandated for admission/ denial of the documents filed by the prosecution or the accused. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Satish Kumar Arora v CBI [2007 IV Ad(h) (DHC) 61] and P. Das

Gupta v The State and another [2006(3) JCC 1592]. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and also other co-accused persons that the documents were voluminous and each accused need to be informed about the documents to be put for admission/ denial, the learned Special Judge directed CBI to file a list of documents sought to be put to each of the accused persons for admission/ denial in terms of Section 294(2) of the Code.

6. The impugned orders of learned Special Judge is assailed in the instant petition by the petitioner. All the contentions which have been raised before this Court by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are the same which were raised before the learned Special Judge and which, as noted above, have been dealt by her in the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 and, to my view, all the contentions have been dealt with by plausible and valid reasons. The fact that the previous presiding officer did not resort to invocation of the provisions of Section 294 of the Code or the prosecution did not request for the same, cannot be a bar for invocation of the provisions of Section 294 of the Code at this stage. This Section 294 of the Code does not prescribe any period or stage for the admission/ denial of the documents filed by the prosecution or the accused. In sub section (1) of Section 294 of the Code, the word 'shall' makes it mandatory for the Court to call upon the parties to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents of each other. The legislative intent of provisions of Section 294 of the Code is very clear and needs no search. The provisions apparently reflect the need for admission/ denial of the documents by the parties for the purpose of expeditious trial of the criminal cases. The intent and purpose would be more relevant in a case of present

nature where the documents which are filed by either party are in large number and many witnesses may be required to be examined for proving those documents. The admission/ denial regarding genuineness of the documents of each other would not only facilitate speedy trial, but avoid wastage of precious time of the Courts and examination of several witnesses. The examination of some of the witnesses and the exhibition of some of the documents would not make any difference. The documents which have already been proved as per law in the statements of prosecution witnesses, need not be put to the accused persons again for the purpose of admission/ denial as that may provide an opportunity to the accused persons to deny even the documents proved according to law. However, the documents which still remained to be proved by the prosecution can certainly be put to the accused persons for admission/ denial under Section 294(1) of the Code. The only requirement of the applicability of Section 294 of the Code is that the documents might have been filed by the prosecution or the accused.

7. With regard to the contention that the documents are voluminous and the accused persons do not know as to which documents pertains to whom, it may be noted that the learned Special Judge has taken care of this aspect and directed CBI to make a list of the documents for the purpose of admission and denial by each of the accused. Here also, it may be noted that the CBI would make a list of only those documents for the purpose of admission/ denial by each of the accused person, which have not been proved in the testimonies of the witnesses already examined. The documents which have already been proved in the testimonies of the witnesses need not form part of the lists to be prepared by the prosecution.

8. With above noted little modification in the impugned order, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Since the matter is listed before the learned Special Judge for the purpose of admission/ denial, a copy of this order be sent to learned Special Judge forthwith.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

April 11 , 2012/rd