Accused May Exhibit Chargesheet Documents Without Formal Signature Proof

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in R. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), allowed a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to permit the accused to mark certain documents as exhibits under Section 294 CrPC (Section 330 of BNSS) without formal proof of signatures, even though those documents already formed part of the prosecution's record and chargesheet. 

• The Court held that when the genuineness of a document sought to be relied upon by the accused is not in dispute, such documents are entitled to be exhibited without requiring formal proof of signatures, in accordance with the scheme of Section 294(3) CrPC.

What was the Background of R. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose from a criminal appeal pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the accused filed an application under Section 294 CrPC seeking permission to mark certain documents — including account opening forms, bank certificates, copies of IT returns, risk rating, and pricing score sheets — as exhibits without insisting on formal proof of signatures. 
• The accused contended that these documents were already part of the prosecution's record and chargesheet materials, and therefore no formal proof was required. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application. The accused filed a criminal revision petition before the Madras High Court, which was also dismissed. 
• The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Naib Din, (2001) — a case concerning Section 296 CrPC (Section 332 of BNSS)— and held that the documents in question were of a formal character and required to be proved via affidavit under Section 296 CrPC. 
• The accused thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had wrongly applied precedent relating to affidavit evidence while deciding an application concerning admission or denial of documents under Section 294 CrPC.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 294 CrPC: The Court held that Section 294 CrPC pertains to documents already filed before the court, wherein parties may be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such documents. If genuineness is not disputed, the documents may be read in evidence without formal proof of signatures, in terms of Section 294(3) CrPC. 
• On the Distinction between Sections 294 and 296 CrPC: The Court drew a clear distinction between the two provisions. Section 294 CrPC deals with documentary evidence and the mechanism of admission or denial of documents already on record. Section 296 CrPC, by contrast, concerns evidence of a formal character given through affidavits by witnesses whose testimony is merely formal in nature. The two provisions operate in entirely different procedural domains and cannot be conflated. 
• On the Inapplicability of Naib Din: The Court held that the ratio of State of Punjab v. Naib Din was not applicable to proceedings under Section 294 CrPC. Since that judgment was rendered in the context of Section 296 CrPC, the High Court had erred in applying it to refuse an application for exhibiting documents without formal proof of signatures. The Court further observed that it is the duty of the court to uphold the spirit of Section 294 CrPC, and that any order must be passed after properly ascertaining the genuineness of the document by admission, denial, or proof. 
• On the Facts of the Case: The Court noted that the documents sought to be marked as exhibits by the appellant were part of the chargesheet and of the documents produced by the prosecution itself. In such circumstances, the High Court erred in refusing to allow them to be exhibited. However, since the prosecution raised a dispute regarding whether the documents actually formed part of the record, the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

What is Section 330 of BNSS? 

• About:   
  • Section 330 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the documents whose formal proof is not required.    
  • It was covered under Section 294 of CrPC earlier.    
  • Two new proviso have been added under Section 330 of BNSS.   
• Section 330   
  • Clause (1) states that here 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 or the advocate for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document soon after supply of such documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply:    
    • Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, relax the time limit with reasons to be recorded in writing:    
    • Provided further that no expert shall be called to appear before the Court unless the report of such expert is disputed by any of the parties to the trial.   
  • Clause (2) states that the list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.   
  • Clause (3) states that 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:   
  • It is provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved 

What is Section 332 of BNSS?  

Section 332 BNSS — Evidence of Formal Character on Affidavit 

What it provides: 

• Evidence of any person whose testimony is of a formal character may be given by affidavit instead of oral examination. 
• Such affidavit evidence may be read in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under BNSS, subject to all just exceptions. 

Power to Summon: 

• The Court may, on its own, summon and examine such a person regarding the facts stated in the affidavit. 
• The Court shall summon and examine such person if an application is made by either the prosecution or the accused.