Procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for admission or denial of documents is mandatory and not discretionary.

The petitioners, who are accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (S.C.C. No. 6253 of 2019), moved an application (Exh. 36) under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.

They sought to produce specific documents, including a Sale Deed and Correction Deed, and requested the court to direct the complainant to admit or deny their genuineness.

The Trial Court had previously allowed the production of these documents (Exh. 34 and 35) but rejected the request to invoke the Section 294 procedure, reasoning that the documents were irrelevant as the cheques in question were issued following a subsequent settlement agreement.

The petitioners challenged this rejection, asserting that the procedure under Section 294 is mandatory.

Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that when a document is filed by the prosecution or the accused, the opposite party "shall" be called upon to admit or deny its genuineness.

The Full Bench precedent of Shaikh Farid Hussainsab vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 294 was introduced to dispense with the avoidable waste of time involved in formal proof and to facilitate speedy trials.

The term "shall" in Section 294 denotes a mandatory obligation, distinguishing it from the discretionary powers of relevancy under Section 136 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court found that since the Trial Court had already permitted the production of the documents via Exh. 34, it was contradictory to refuse the Section 294 procedure.

The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Section 294 is to expedite proceedings; once a document is included in the list, the court has no discretion and must call upon the other party to admit or deny it.

The court emphasized that the Trial Court erred by pre-judging the "relevancy" of the evidence at this stage.

It clarified that admitting or denying the genuineness of a document under Section 294 does not amount to a final determination of its admissibility or evidentiary value, which remains to be decided during the final adjudication on merits.

The court held that the procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and directed the Trial Court to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the documents.

It further directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months, while noting that the observations on relevancy were prima facie and should not influence the final trial.