Section 294 of CrPC mandates a distinct document list for admission or denial, differentiating it from the charge sheet documents.

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Judge') whereby the application of the petitioners seeking a direction not to invoke S.294 of the CrPC during trial of the case pending before the Special Court, has been declined.

2. It appears that a complaint under S.44 and S.45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMLA') has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners, alleging the commission of offences under S.3 and S.4 of the said Act and the said complaint is pending before the Court of Special Judge for PMPLA cases (Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu). It further appears that, at the stage of prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024, calling upon the petitioners / accused to admit or deny the documents relied upon by the respondent / complainant by invoking powers under S.294 of the CrPC. However, the petitioners moved an application before the Court of Special Judge, with a prayer not to invoke S.294 of the CrPC. In the said application, it was pleaded by the petitioners / accused that before invoking the provisions contained in S.294 of the CrPC, the prosecution has to include the documents sought to be admitted or denied in a list, in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government as required under S.294(2) of the CrPC. It was contended before the learned Special Judge that no such form has been prescribed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir as yet and, therefore, the provisions contained in S.294 of the CrPC cannot be invoked.

3. The learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order, declining the prayer of the petitioners. In the impugned order, it has been observed by the learned Special Judge that the objection raised by the petitioners is not tenable, as the list of documents has already been placed on record by the complainant / respondent along with the complaint, wherein the particulars of the documents relied upon have been entered and soft copies thereof have already been provided to the petitioners. It has also been observed by the Special Judge that the defence can always seek clarification in case of any difficulty in indentifying any document or understanding contents thereof.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Special Judge has not addressed the question as to whether the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has prescribed any form as contemplated under S.294 (2) of the CrPC and, as such, it has fallen into error by observing that the list of documents as contemplated under S.294(2) of the CrPC is the same as the list annexed with the charge sheet / complaint. It has also been contended that it was not open to the learned Special Judge to invoke the provisions contained in S.294 of the CrPC suo moto without an application from the prosecution. According to the petitioners, the prescription of a form by the Government, in terms of sub-section (2) of S.294 of the CrPC is mandatory, and unless such a form is prescribed, the provisions contained in S.294 of the CrPC cannot be invoked.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

6. The controversy that this Court has been called upon to determine is as to whether the list of documents as contemplated under S.294 of the CrPC is different from the list of documents as is annexed with the charge - sheet or complaint. The second issue, which is required to be determined is, as to whether, in the absence of any