Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Ashok Daga – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)- Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8535/2024(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2024 in CC No.10/2019 passed by the SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act) (CBI), (Coal Block Cases) – 02, New Delhi)
Decided on : 12-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sonam Gupta, AOR, Mr. Saumay Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv.
The court ruled that requiring an accused to admit or deny document genuineness under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. does not violate their rights or compel self-incrimination.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 294 - Right of accused - The court held that requiring the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of documents does not infringe upon the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The observations regarding the effect of denial on sentencing were deleted. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order regarding the admission of document genuineness, arguing it prejudiced his rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prejudice to the accused's rights and upheld the order, deleting specific observations on sentencing.
Issues: Whether requiring the accused to admit or deny document genuineness violates constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the procedure under Section 294 is not prejudicial and does not compel self-incrimination.
Result: Special Leave Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Dave for the petitioner has pointed out para 56 of the impugned order, which reads as under:-
“56. The only effect of such a deliberate denial will be on the question of sentence that will be passed against him, if he is convicted. His conduct in deliberately denying the genuineness of a document may be taken as an aggravating circumstance while determining quantum of sentence because it will lead to prolonged trial. Other than this, there is no effect of such a deliberate denial.”
2. After having heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dave for the petitioner and having perused Section 294 of Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
3. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the observations made in para 56 are deleted.
4. It is needless to say that the petitioner – accused shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions, as may be legally permissible during the course of trial.
5. Subject to the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
