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

The Petitioner challenged a common order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, which dismissed his applications for the production and inspection of original documents.

The Income Tax Department (Respondent No. 2) had filed complaints alleging undisclosed foreign assets under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on data from "ICIJ.org" suggesting the Petitioner held shares in a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity.

The Petitioner contended that the documents supplied were unauthenticated photocopies of foreign public records.

While the petitions were pending, the Trial Court, on 05.12.2024, allowed the Complainant’s application to place the actual original/attested documents on record.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petitioner’s application for production and inspection of original documents as "premature".

2. Whether the lack of authenticated foreign public documents at the pre-charge stage prejudices the rights of the accused.

3. Whether the subsequent production of original documents by the Respondent during the pendency of these petitions renders the grievance infructuous.

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

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

Procedurally, the court applied principles under Section 91 and Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the production of evidence.

The precedent in Poonam Jain v. Union of India, which affirms the accused’s right to be supplied with all relied-upon material for a fair trial.

The Court noted that since the Trial Court had already passed a subsequent order on 05.12.2024 allowing the Income Tax Department to place the original and authenticated documents on record, the Petitioner's primary grievance regarding non-production was "extinguished".

The Court reasoned that while the admissibility and authentication of foreign documents under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act must be adjudicated during the evidence stage, the accused maintains a fundamental right to inspect such documents once they are part of the judicial record to prepare a defense.

The Court found that the ACMM correctly identified that the method of proof is a trial issue, but underscored that the accused remains at liberty to challenge the genuineness and mode of proof during cross-examination.

The Petitions were disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all legal objections regarding the admissibility and authentication of documents under Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act at the appropriate trial stage.

The Court further granted the Petitioner the right to inspect the newly filed original documents in accordance with court rules.