Trial Court Cannot Refuse Admission or Denial of Documents Based on Relevance

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan of the Bombay High Court, in the case of M/s Ascent Ventures & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026), held that Section 294 CrPC (Section 330 of BNSS) is mandatory and a Trial Court cannot reject an application seeking to compel the opposite party to admit or deny documents merely on the ground of relevancy. The Court quashed the Trial Court's order and directed it to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the documents in accordance with Section 294 CrPC.

What was the Background of M/s Ascent Ventures & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose out of a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before a Magistrate's court. 
• The accused sought to rely upon certain defence documents — including a sale deed, a correction deed, and development permissions — as part of their defence. 
• The accused filed an application under Section 294 CrPC seeking to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of these documents. 
• The complainant opposed the application on the grounds of lack of relevance and alleged delay tactics. 
• The Trial Court, while permitting production of the documents, refused to compel admission or denial, citing want of relevancy. 
• The accused challenged this order by way of a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined Section 294 CrPC and clarified that it governs the procedure for documents placed on record, requiring the opposite party to admit or deny their genuineness. 
• Section 294 CrPC does not bar the filing of documents at a later stage, provided they are properly brought on record in accordance with law. 
• Since the Trial Court had already permitted production of the documents, there was no justification to refuse the second prayer seeking admission or denial under Section 294 CrPC. 
• The Trial Court erred in entering into the question of relevancy at that stage; relevance is a matter for final adjudication and cannot be a ground to refuse the statutory procedure under Section 294 CrPC. 
• Merely calling upon a party to admit or deny the genuineness of documents does not determine their admissibility or evidentiary value — the complainant retains the right to dispute the documents at trial. 
• The use of the word "shall" in Section 294 CrPC indicates a mandatory obligation, leaving no discretion with the Trial Court to refuse compliance. 
• The procedure under Section 294 CrPC is intended to avoid unnecessary delay and facilitate an expeditious trial by dispensing with formal proof of documents where their genuineness is not disputed. 
• Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to comply with Section 294 CrPC.

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.