The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has clarified that merely attaching a list of documents with a chargesheet does not meet the requirements of Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
While dealing with a plea under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Court emphasized that in order to comply with Section 294 CrPC, it is necessary to issue proper notice to the opposite party. This involves serving a separate and detailed list of documents that the party is being asked to admit or deny.
"Filing an index of documents with the chargesheet is not a valid substitute under Section 294 CrPC," the Court stressed.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar stated that although the Court can ask the parties to admit or deny documents filed before it, those documents must be clearly listed with individual details and served as per procedure.
The Special Trial Court in this case had accepted the chargesheet’s annexed document index as sufficient under Section 294 CrPC. However, the High Court ruled this as an error, stating:
"The list under Section 294 CrPC must only include documents that are to be put to the adverse party for admission or denial."
Not all documents in a chargesheet need to be admitted or denied. Hence, including them all in a general index does not satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 294 or its equivalent provision—Section 330 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana, where it was held that:
"A separate list containing particulars of documents must be prepared and exchanged with the other side before admission/denial can be called."
Read also: Accused Can’t Be Detained Just Because He Got Bail: J&K High Court’s Strong Stand
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had issued a notification prescribing the format for the list of documents under Section 330(2) BNSS, which corresponds to Section 294 CrPC.
"The notified format must be used to ensure compliance with procedural law," the Court stated.
This made it clear that there’s a significant difference between the document list in a chargesheet and the formal list required under Section 294 CrPC.
The High Court directed the Special Judge to:
- Ask the complainant to prepare a fresh list of documents in the prescribed format,
- Ensure this list includes only those documents that are being presented for admission or denial, and
- Serve this list to the petitioners before calling upon them to admit or deny any document.
Case Background
The case arose when petitioners challenged an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge under the PMLA. The trial court had invoked Section 294 CrPC to direct the petitioners to admit or deny documents presented by the prosecution.
The petitioners argued that:
- Section 294(2) required a specific form to be notified by the government, which hadn’t been done.
- The document list attached to the complaint or chargesheet could not serve as a valid replacement.
However, the Special Judge dismissed their objections, stating the documents were already part of the complaint and had been shared.
The petitioners then approached the High Court, raising two critical issues:
- Whether the chargesheet document index can be treated as a valid list under Section 294 CrPC, and
- Whether Section 294 CrPC can even be applied if the official format had not been notified.
The High Court addressed both issues and ruled that a chargesheet index is not sufficient, and procedural compliance with the notified format is essential.
APPEARANCE:
Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate For Petitioner
Vishal Sharma DSGI For Respondents
Case-Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2025
