1 2026:CGHC:509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3656 of 2025 Royden Harold Buthello S/o Harold Anthony Buthello Aged About 33 Years R/o Flat No. 20, Arunodaya C H S Ltd. A Wing, Manipada, Sunder Nagar, Kalina University, Near Buth Vihar, Kalina Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400098. ... Petitioner -Versus- State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Thana / P.S. - City Kotwali, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dev. M. Galani, Advocate (through virtual mode) along with Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 12-11-2025, passed by learned Special Judge VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.25 13:49:56 +0530 2 (NDPS), Raipur, in Special Case No. 98/2020, whereby the application under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner is an accused in Special Case No. 98/2020, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, for the offence under Section 22(b), 29 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the NDPS Act”). After recording the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023) were recorded on 23-08-2025, and thereafter, the accused persons, including the petitioner, pleaded that they did not want to examine any defence witness. On 23-08-2025 itself, the petitioner filed an application under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. along with the certified copies of certain documents obtained from the Special Case No. 87/2020, pending before the learned Xth Special Sessions Judge (NDPS), Raipur and prayed for a direction to the prosecution either to admit the documents or to deny the same. On 10-09-2025, the prosecution filed its reply and thereafter, on 16-10- 2025, the prosecution filed a supplementary reply to the application of the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12-11-2025. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was also arrested in Crime No. 232/2020, registered at the 3 police station Azad Chowk, Raipur, for the offence under the NDPS Act, for which he is facing trial of Special Case (NDPS) No. 87/2020, before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur. He has also been falsely implicated in Crime No. 255/2020, registered at the police station, Kotwali, Raipur, for which he is facing trial of Special Case No. 98/2020, before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur. In support of his defence, he filed certain certified copies of the documents obtained from the Special Case (NDPS) No. 87/2020 and filed in the Special Case No. 98/2020, along with an application under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution is required to either admit or deny the documents and in the absence thereof, the documents submitted by the petitioner should be admitted in evidence from the defence side without any formal proof. He would further submit that the authenticity of the documents is admitted by the prosecution in their reply, and therefore, the same should be admitted in evidence and read as the evidence without any formal proof. He would further submit that the prosecution, in its first reply filed on 10-09-2025, admitted the genuineness of the documents, and in its second reply filed on 16-10-2025, denied the documents on the ground that it relates to another case. Directing for another reply to the prosecution itself is violative of criminal procedure. The documents filed by the petitioner are the certified copies of the exhibited documents filed in Special Case No. 87/2020, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur. The learned trial Court, by invoking the powers under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., should have allowed the application and 4 dispensed with the petitioner/accused to prove the same. Once the genuineness of the documents are not disputed, the documents should be admitted in evidence without any formal proof, so that the valuable time of the Court is not wasted. He would further submit that there is no need to prove the certified copies of the documents by summoning the witnesses from Odisha, which may delay the trial of the case unnecessarily. Therefore, the impugned order may be set- aside and the application of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. may be allowed. He would rely on the judgments, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2988 (Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. and Others), 1981 SCC OnLine Bom. 26 (Shaikh Farid Hussainsab v. State of Maharashtra) and 2017 (8) SCC 570 (Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that the powers conferred under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. are not mandatory but discretionary and do not override the principles of relevancy and admissibility. The documents filed by the petitioner in the present case are certified copies of the exhibited documents of the Special Case No. 87/2020, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur. Though the issuance of certified copies is not disputed, the same cannot be considered in the present case, as the documents relate to the defence taken by the petitioner in the Special Case (NDPS) No. 87/2020. The learned trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction and disposed of the application of the petitioner, holding that the 5 petitioner/accused is required to prove the documents, which is in accordance with the law and does not require interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The issue for consideration in the present case would be whether the learned trial Court committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. seeking admission of the certified copies of the documents obtained from another criminal case without formal proof. 7. It is necessary here to notice the provision of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “294. No formal proof of certain documents.— (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. 6 (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” 8. The powers under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is enabling and procedural. It does not curtail the judicial discretion of the Court to examine the admissibility of the documents. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner/accused is required to prove the documents in accordance with the law. The certified copies of the document sought to be produced are obtained from Special Case (NDPS) No. 87/2020, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur. A criminal trial of the case is inherently case-specific. The evidence led in a particular prosecution is confined to the adjudication of the charge in that case alone. As a general rule, evidence recorded in one criminal proceeding does not automatically become evidence in another 7 proceeding, even if it involves the same accused or arises out of related transactions. 9. Section 27 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that- “27. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated. - Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable: Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and 8 the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. Explanation.—A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this Section.” 10. Section 33 of the evidence act provides that the evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding may be relevant in a subsequent proceeding if the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest, the opposite party has a right to cross examine the witness, the issue were substantially the same and the witness cannot be found or incapable to give evidence. The admission of genuineness under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. dispenses only with formal proof, not with proof of relevance or substantive admissibility. The documents sought to be produced are certified copies and are public documents as defined under Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 {Sections 74(1) and 75 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023}. The certified copies of the public documents may be admissible to prove the contents of those documents; however, the admissibility of a certified copy does not automatically establish its relevance to the issue in the new case. The petitioner/accused must establish the relevance and the admissibility of the documents. Unless these requirements are satisfied, evidence 9 from one criminal proceeding cannot be imported into another merely by filing certified copies or invoking Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, while Section 294 Cr.P.C. enables the Court to dispense with formal proof where genuineness is admitted, it does not obviate the necessity of establishing relevance and substantive admissibility under the Evidence Act. The petitioner/accused must lay the foundational basis showing how the documents are relevant to the facts in issue and legally admissible in the present proceeding. Unless these twin requirements are satisfied, evidence from one criminal case cannot be imported into another merely by filing certified copies or invoking Section 294 Cr.P.C. 12. Under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Sections 74(1) and 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), judicial records of Courts are public documents and certified copies thereof may be produced in proof of their contents. Such certified copies are admissible without calling the original record. However, the admissibility of a certified copy as secondary evidence of a public document does not, by itself, establish that the contents are relevant in a different proceeding. In “Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh”, 2013 (10) SCC 758, the Supreme Court reiterated that admissibility and proof are distinct from relevancy; a document may be proved in accordance with law, yet remain irrelevant to the matter in issue. 10 “13. Section 65(c) of the 1872 Act provides that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. The court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in the court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence. (Vide H. Siddiqui (Dead) By Lrs. v. Α. Ramalingam. (2011) 4 SCC 240 and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S Food Products (2012) 2 SCC 196.) However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in the section. The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When the 11 party gives in evidence a certified copy/secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise an objection at the time of ad-mission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage. Further, mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. (Vide Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1457, Marwari Kumhar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri (2000) 6 SCC 735, AIR 2000 SC 2629, R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752, AIR 2003 SC 4548, Dayamathi Bai (Smt) v. K.M Shaffi. (2004) 7 SCC 107, AIR 2004 SC 4082 and LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491) 14. In M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu (2010) 9 SCC 712 this Court considered this aspect in detail and held as under: 12 "47. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It should be emphasised that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party." A similar view has been reiterated in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani. (2007) 5 SCC 730, AIR 2007 SC 1721.” 13 13. In the case of Shyam Narayan Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where certain documents were filed during trial, and their genuineness was not disputed by the prosecution. The controversy before the Court primarily concerned the effect of Section 294 Cr.P.C. and whether, once genuineness is admitted, the party tendering the document is still required to formally prove it by examining a witness. The Court reiterated the settled principle that when the opposite party does not dispute the genuineness of a document, formal proof can be dispensed with in order to avoid unnecessary delay in trial. The emphasis was on preventing procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice; however, the present case stands on a materially different footing. Here, the documents sought to be relied upon are certified copies of documents from another criminal case. The prosecution has objected not merely to the mode of proof, but to the relevance and applicability of those documents in the present trial. In Shyam Narayan Ram (supra), there was no dispute regarding the relevance of the documents to the case in which they were produced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not lay down any proposition that documents from one criminal proceeding automatically become admissible in another merely upon admission of genuineness. The judgment does not dilute the settled distinction between dispensing with formal proof and establishing relevance and substantive admissibility. Accordingly, the ratio of Shyam Narayan Ram (supra) is confined to cases where the document is otherwise relevant and 14 admissible in the same proceeding, and therefore, it does not advance the petitioner’s case in the present factual matrix. 14. In the case of Shaikh Farid Hussainsab (supra), the Bombay High Court was concerned with the scope and object of Section 294 Cr.P.C. and emphasised that where the genuineness of a document is not disputed, the Court should ordinarily dispense with formal proof to avoid unnecessary delay in trial. The controversy in that case pertained to documents produced within the same proceeding, whose authenticity was not in question, and the objection, if any, related merely to formal proof. However, the present case stands on a different footing for the following reasons: the documents were part of the same prosecution and were directly connected to the issues under adjudication. In contrast, the documents sought to be relied upon here are certified copies of records from an entirely separate criminal case. Their mere existence as judicial records does not establish their relevance to the present trial, and they did not hold that admission of genuineness under Section 294 Cr.P.C. automatically renders a document relevant or admissible irrespective of its nexus to the facts in issue. Section 294 only dispenses with formal proof of a document whose genuineness is admitted; it does not override the foundational requirement that the document must be legally relevant under the Evidence Act. Shaikh Farid Hussainsab’s case (supra) did not deal with such a situation, nor did it authorise the automatic transposition of evidence from one criminal case into another. 15 15. In Sonu @ Amar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the admissibility of electronic evidence and the effect of failure to object to the mode of proof at the appropriate stage of trial. The objection raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court related to non-compliance with the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Court held that an objection regarding the mode or method of proof must be taken at the time the evidence is tendered, and if not so raised, such objection may be treated as waived. The ruling thus clarified the distinction between (i) objections relating to the mode of proof and (ii) objections relating to inherent admissibility. 16. The controversy in the present case, however, is not about waiver of objection to the mode of proof. Here, the prosecution has objected to the very relevance and substantive admissibility of the documents sought to be introduced from another criminal proceeding. The issue is whether certified copies of judicial records from a separate trial can automatically be read as evidence in the present case merely because their genuineness is not disputed. This raises a question of substantive admissibility and relevance, not merely of procedural proof. Further, in Sonu @ Amar (supra), the evidence in question was tendered in the same trial in which it was relied upon. The Court did not deal with a situation involving the transposition of evidence from one criminal case into another without satisfying statutory conditions such as those contemplated under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. The judgment does not lay down that admission of genuineness or 16 absence of objection under Section 294 Cr.P.C. dispenses with the foundational requirement of proving relevance. 17. In the present case, the prosecution had admitted in its reply dated 10-09-2025 that the certified copies of the documents were obtained from the Special Case No. 87/2020. In its reply dated 16-10-2025, the prosecution/state has denied the documents as it relates to another case. It is the documents on which the defence relied his case and marked as a defence document in another criminal case. Para 3 of the reply dated 16-10-2025 is relevant to be reproduced here, which reads as under:- “3- यह कि, अभियक्त  15  ओर से ्ቚस्तत आवेदन प्ቔ   कि 04 ेሰ वेቓኌत थन  सेबंध ेሰ ्ቢ्ቖ किय जात ह& कि, आवेद अभियक्त ቛኋर ्ቚस्तत उक्त आवेदन अन्य ्ቚर ” से सेबंधिधत ह+न  र स्वे,र य+ग्य नह. ह&। 18. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is procedural in nature and its scope is limited to dispensing with the formal proof of genuineness of a document whose authenticity is not disputed. It does not dispense with the foundational requirement that the document must be relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act. Even if certified copies of public documents are filed, and their genuineness is admitted, the petitioner/accused must still establish the relevance and admissibility of those documents in the context of the issues in the 17 present trial. Documents from another criminal proceeding cannot automatically be treated as substantive evidence merely because Section 294 Cr.P.C. is invoked; their admissibility depends on compliance with statutory requirements and proof of their connection to the facts in issue. 19. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner—Shyam Narayan Ram, Shaikh Farid Hussainsab, and Sonu @ Amar (supra) deal with situations where documents were tendered in the same proceeding and their genuineness was not disputed. None of these judgments permits the automatic importation of evidence from one criminal trial to another without establishing relevance and compliance with statutory safeguards. 20. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in requiring the petitioner to prove the documents in accordance with the law. Section 294 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass the essential principles of relevancy and admissibility, and the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. does not warrant interference. 21. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved