### Objections to the Admissibility and Authentication of Foreign Documents are Adjudicable at the Stage of Evidence

The Petitioner challenged a common order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, which dismissed his application 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 information from "ICIJ.org" regarding a BVI entity.

The Petitioner argued that the documents provided were unauthenticated photocopies of foreign records.

During the pendency of these petitions, the Trial Court, on 05.12.2024, allowed a subsequent application by the Respondent to place the original/authenticated 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 challenge to the Trial Court’s refusal to order production survives after the documents were subsequently placed on record by the Complainant.

The court considered Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

It referenced 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.

The court also noted Section 279B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the admissibility of documents in the custody of Income Tax authorities.

The court established that the right of an accused to material relied upon by the prosecution is fundamental to a fair trial.

The High Court observed that the primary grievance of the Petitioner regarding the non-production of originals had been rendered "extinguished" or infructuous because the Trial Court had, in a subsequent order dated 05.12.2024, already allowed the Income Tax Department to place the authenticated/certified documents on record.

The Court reasoned that the ACMM correctly identified that the specific evidentiary value, authentication under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, and the mode of proof are matters for adjudication during the trial stage rather than at the threshold.

However, it emphasized that the accused maintains the right to inspect these records once they are part of the judicial file to prepare a defense.

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

The Court further granted the Petitioner the liberty to inspect the newly filed documents as per court rules.