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

The Petitioner, Sh. Avinder Singh Puri, was accused by the Income Tax Department (Respondent No. 2) of non-disclosure of foreign assets and being a director of a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity, allegedly violating Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 191 of the IPC.

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

The Ld. ACMM dismissed the application on 24.10.2019, labeling it "premature" and stating that admissibility would be determined at the evidence stage.

The Petitioner challenged this order via five petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

During the pendency of these petitions, the Trial Court passed a subsequent order on 05.12.2024, allowing the Respondent’s application to place the original/authenticated documents on record.

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

2. Whether the challenge to the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 survives following the subsequent production of original documents by the Respondent.

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

It referenced Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948, regarding authentication.

The court relied on *Jain Engineering Co. v. Enforcement Directorate* to underscore that foreign documents must be authenticated.

The court relied on *Poonam Jain v. Union of India* regarding the accused’s right to copies of all relied-upon material.

Furthermore, Section 279B of the Income Tax Act was noted regarding the admissibility of documents in the custody of Income Tax authorities.

The Court observed that the primary grievance of the Petitioner—the non-production of original, authenticated documents—was effectively resolved by the Trial Court's subsequent order dated 05.12.2024, which permitted the Respondent to place the original and attested versions (obtained via TIEA and DTAA) on the judicial record.

The Court reasoned that since the documents were now available, the "substratum" of the Petitioner's grievance was extinguished.

Regarding the Ld. ACMM's initial refusal, the High Court noted that while the right to be supplied with material is fundamental to a fair trial, the specific questions of evidentiary value and method of proof are matters for adjudication during the trial stage.

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner retains the right to challenge the genuineness and mode of proof of these documents under Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act during cross-examination.

The Petitions were disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all legal objections regarding admissibility and authentication at the appropriate trial stage and has the right to inspect the newly filed documents on the judicial record.