### Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Foreign Documents are Matters of Trial, Not Threshold Adjudication

The Petitioner, Sh. Avinder Singh Puri, was facing five complaints filed by the Income Tax Department (Respondent No. 2) alleging undisclosed foreign assets and offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 191 of the IPC.

The allegations were based on information from “ICIJ.org” suggesting the Petitioner held interests in a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity.

The Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking the production and inspection of original documents, arguing that the supplied documents were unauthenticated photocopies of foreign records.

The Ld. ACMM dismissed the application on 24.10.2019, terming it “premature”.

During the pendency of this challenge, the Trial Court passed a subsequent order on 05.12.2024 allowing the Department to place original/attested documents on record.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the production and inspection of original/authenticated foreign documents at the pre-charge stage.

Whether the non-production of authenticated documents under Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act prejudices the right to a fair trial.

Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates that public documents of a foreign country must be proved by the original or a certified copy bearing a certificate from a Notary Public or Indian diplomatic agent.

Section 279B of the Income Tax Act regarding the admissibility of documents in the custody of Income Tax authorities.

Section 91 read with Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the production of evidence.

Jain Engineering Co. vs. Enforcement Directorate regarding the necessity of authenticating foreign documents.

Poonam Jain vs. Union of India regarding the accused’s right to materials relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court observed that while the initial grievance focused on the lack of original authenticated documents, a significant shift occurred when the Trial Court, on 05.12.2024, allowed the Income Tax Department to place the original/attested versions received via BVI and Singapore treaties on record.

Consequently, the Petitioner's primary grievance regarding non-production was rendered "extinguished" as the documents were now part of the judicial record.

The Court reasoned that the Ld. ACMM was correct in holding that specific challenges to admissibility and evidentiary value (such as compliance with the Diplomatic and Consular Officers Act) are matters for the evidence stage, not for dismissal at the threshold.

However, the Court emphasized that a fair trial necessitates the accused's right to inspect such documents to challenge their genuineness during cross-examination.

The Court disposed of the petitions, granting the Petitioner liberty to inspect the newly filed original/authenticated documents in accordance with court rules.

Furthermore, the Petitioner was granted the right to raise all legal objections regarding the mode of proof, admissibility, and authentication under Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act at the appropriate stage of the trial.