Supreme Court: Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution U/ S. 294 CrPC Not Violation Of Article 20(3) of constitution

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.{Para 2}

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8535/2024

ASHOK DAGA Vs  DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Date : 12-07-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

 O R D E R

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.

Print Page