The judgment emphasizes the procedural requirements for proving/disproving documents under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. and the distinction between filing documents by the prosecution and the accused.

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.

Heard Sri Saurabh Trivedi and Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.02.2014 and 28.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut in S.T. No. 975 of 2013 (State Vs. Rajan Shukla) C.C. No. 652 of 2012, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Medical, District Meerut.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on 09.12.2013, the informant-o.p. no. 2 had filed a list of documents (Annexure-1) and in the said list of documents item no. 3 is a hand written letter of the deceased Smt. Kiran Shukla. It has been contended that the said list has been filed as evidence of the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the filing of the said list of documents, he had filed elaborate objections, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. To the said objections filed by the applicant, a replication was also filed by O.P. No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has strongly contended that the said list could not be taken on record and, therefore, could not be read in evidence as it has been filed by the informant and not by the prosecution and thus, the same cannot be accepted as evidence. He has further contended that the said letter mentioned in the list cannot be proved because the alleged writer of the said letter has already expired.

6. A perusal of the objection filed by the applicant shows that his grievance is basically to the acceptance of the documents on record itself. It is his contention that the said list of documents could not have been filed by the informant and could only have come from the side of the prosecution and further that the said list could not be taken on record. The relevant extract of such objection reads as follows:

"Yah ki vadi dwara suchi se dakhil ukt dastavejo ko sabit nahi kiya ja sakta hai jis karan ukt sabhi dastavej puri tarah auchityahin hai tatha patravali par dakhil hone yogya nahi hai aur na hi sakshya me grahya hai."

7. Strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon a full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Saddiq Vs. State; 1980 Law Suit (All) 199. However, a perusal of the question, that was referred to full Bench, was to the following effect:

"Can an injury report filed by the prosecution which has been admitted to be genuine by the accused, be read as substantive evidence under section 294(3), Cr.P.C.?"

And the full Bench has confined itself to answering the question.

Section 294 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

294. No formal proof of certain documents. (1) Where 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, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) 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:

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

However, it is clear from the bare perusal of said section that whether 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 it is only thereafter, that the "pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document."

8. From the perusal of record, it is crystal clear that list of documents has only been