The court emphasized the necessity of fair procedure in criminal proceedings, allowing the accused to contest evidence effectively.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the accused in Spl.C.C.No.9/2012 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., for a direction to the respondent - prosecution to file the list of documents together with the purpose and relevance proposed to be marked / admitted in evidence by the respondent - prosecution, so as to enable the petitioner- accused to have his say in the matter, was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 294 Cr.P.C., dated 07.12.2024, in order to point out that though the simple request made in the application by the petitioner was for a direction to the respondent - prosecution to merely file a list of documents together with the purpose and relevance for which they propose to mark the said documents, so as to enable the petitioner to contest the proceedings and have his say in the matter, the respondent - prosecution sought for counter direction as against the petitioner, which is impermissible in law and the trial Court has proceeded not only to reject the application filed by the petitioner, but has also issued directions against the petitioner to produce cash, gold and silver, original documents etc. mentioned in I.A. Nos.1 to 7, which traveled beyond the scope and ambit of the application filed by the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned Senior counsel would also point out that the mere object and purpose of filing the present application was that the documents sought to be marked by the respondent prosecution was beyond the check period, which expired prior to 22.04.2008 and would not be relevant or material for the purpose of adjudication of the instant case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the application and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the prayer sought by the petitioner in the instant application, which is as under,

"WHEREFORE, the accused most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the prosecution to file the list of documents together with purpose and relevance, specifically that it proposes to mark to enable the accused to have his say in the interest of justice."

7. By way of objections to the said application, the respondent-prosecution not only sought for rejection of the application, but made a counter prayer as against the petitioner who was not provided any opportunity to file objections to the counter claim / prayer sought, and in the absence of the same, the question of summarily and unilaterally allowing the counter claim / prayer as sought for by the prosecution, in its statement of objections would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

8. It is also relevant to state that the innocuous prayer sought for by the petitioner was for a direction to the respondent-prosecution to merely file a list of documents together with the purpose and relevance specifically for which they propose to mark, so that the petitioner will have an opportunity to contest the same in consonance with the principles of justice, equity, fairplay and natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

9. In the result, the following;

Order

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned