CRL OP/8533/2026 of M/s. Disc Assets Lead India Limited Vs The Deputy Director
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
and Crl.M.P.No.6077 of 2026
1.M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited,
Having Office at Old Door No.59/1,
New No.119, Canal Bank Road,
CIT Nagar, Chennai - 600 035.
Represented by its Erstwhile
Managing Director V.Janarthanan
Residing at No.14A, Karuman Illam,
Park Town, 4th Street, Madurai - 17.
2.V.Janarthanan,
S/o.Vivekanandam,
Erstwhile Managing Director of
M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Ltd.,
Residing at No.14A, Karuman Illam,
Park Town, 4th Street, Madurai - 17. .. Petitioner(s) /
Accused Nos.1&4
Vs
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India,
B-Wing, 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondent(s) /
Complainant
______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to call for records on the file of V III Additional
City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Court CBI) pertaining t o
Crl.M.P.No.1465 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.06 of 2021 and to set aside the
order dated 11.12.2025 granting the liberty to refile the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For Respondent(s):Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil
Special Public Prosecutor
for ED Cases
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
The petitioner assails the order dated 11.12.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.1465 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.06 of 2021 on th e file of VIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Court CBI ), in dismissing
the petition filed under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. as not pr essed and
granting liberty to file fresh petition.
2. The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under
Section 44(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
[hereinafter referred to as “the PML Act”] against the
petitioners/accused 1 & 4 for an offence under Sectio n 3 of the PML
______________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
Act. The trial court took cognizance and the charges were framed
against the accused on 12.04.2022.
3. The complainant had filed a petition under Section 294 of
Cr.P.C. to receive the list of documents filed in Judicial Form No.78 as
per the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019. The relief soug ht for reads as
follows;
“a. The property documents/conveyance deeds/titles deed s registered by
the accused persons in the concerned Sub Registrar Office s, contained in
Part-C (Book 1 to 7) of Annexure-B (Relied Upon Documents) and;
b. The statement of accounts of the accused persons m aintained with the
bank of the relevant bank witnesses contained in Part-E (Book 1 to 4)
along with the Compact Disks, Certificates U/s.65-B of India n Evidence
Act and 2A of Banker’s Book of Evidence Act of Annex ure-B (Relied Upon
Documents).”
4. The petitioners/accused filed counter resisting the pe tition
and the petition was also heard. The complainant had, however, filed a
memo seeking to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh
petition after obtaining certified / authenticated copies. The trial Court,
by order dated 11.12.2025, dismissed the petition as no t pressed,
granting liberty to file a fresh petition. Now the order is assailed mainly
______________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
on the ground that the rights accrued to the petitione rs had been
taken away by allowing the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to file
afresh. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the liber ty granted to
the respondent to file a fresh petition.
5. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
6. In a criminal trial, once the charges are framed, it is upon the
prosecution to bring in the evidences to prove the ch arges beyond
reasonable doubt. In cases involving large number of witne sses and
voluminous documents, to facilitate speedy trial and to curtail
unnecessary processes, Section 294 of Cr.P.C. allows b oth prosecution
and defense to file documents, which provides for admission and
denial of documents where no formal proof of certain documents is
required.
7. For easy reference, Section 294 of Cr.P.C. is extracted
hereunder;
“294. No formal proof of certain documents.- (1) Where a ny document is
filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars
______________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
of every such document shall be included in a list and th e 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.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may b e prescribed by
the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such
document may be read in evidence in any 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. In normal circumstances, any document that is filed is to be
proved by examining the witnesses. Section 294 of Cr.P.C . facilitates
smoother proceedings, whereby the lengthy process cou ld be waived
when the document is admitted. Section 294 comes to t he aid of both
the prosecution and the accused and the provision does not
contemplate any specific stage at which it could be filed.
9. When a petition under Section 294 is filed, then th e other
side is called upon to admit or deny the documents. In case the other
party admits, there is no requirement of any further proof and only in
case the same is denied or objected, then it is for the applicant party
______________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
to prove the documents through proper procedure by letting in
evidence.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh
Verma v. State of Haryana [(2016) 15 SCC 485] held that the object
of Section 294 is to accelerate pace of trial by avoid ing the time being
wasted. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder;
“11. The object of Section 294 CrPC is to accelerate pace of trial
by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the
unnecessary evidence. Where genuineness of any documen t is admitted,
or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence.”
11. When the provision does not contemplate the stage at which
petition under Section 294 could be filed, the provision also does not
restrict the number of petitions that could be filed invoking the
provision. In this regard, it is useful to refer the jud gment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of Naveen Panchal v. State of NCT of Delhi
[2024 SCC OnLine Del 7006], which took recourse to the observations
made by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Saddiq v. State
[1980 SCC OnLine All 614] . The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
______________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
“22. Further, the right to seek admission denial is neith er restricted to
any particular stage nor is it confined to be availed only a t one time. The
Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Saddiq v. State [1980
SCC OnLine All 614] succinctly explains that the word “any” appearing
before the word “document” makes sub-section (1) of Section 294 CrPC,
applicable to all documents filed by the prosecution or the accused
irrespective of their nature and character, which can be f iled indefinite
number of times. Section 294 CrPC does not limit the filing of the
documents by the accused to one time and can be resorted to at any time
after the charge is framed and for any number of times . Of course, it
goes without saying that this right is circumscribed by the jurisdiction of
the court to disallow the filing of the documents or their admission denial,
if found to be irrelevant or an abuse of process of law or tantamount to
dilatory tactics.”
12. In the instant case, the complainant had filed a pet ition
under Section 294 seeking to receive the documents men tioned above
along with the list in Judicial Form No.78. From the list it could be seen
that there are more than 1200 documents, most of which are stated to
be the sale deeds pertaining to the accused. When the purpose of the
provision itself is to accelerate the trial of the case b y avoiding the
time being wasted in proving these documents if they a re admitted,
strangely the petitioners who are said to be parties to the documents
had resisted the petition denying the documents, whereupon the
complainant had filed a memo to withdraw the petition with liberty to
file a fresh petition after procuring all required certified copies.
______________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
13. It is the vehement contention of the learned coun sel for the
petitioners that the complainant in the first instance oug ht to have
filed a petition with proper materials and now cannot be a llowed to
withdraw the petition to fill up the lacunas pointed out, with liberty to
file a fresh petition. We are not impressed with the sai d contention for
the simple reason that, Section 294 itself was intended for the
laudable purpose of cutting the cost and avoiding time in the trial
whereby the documents are received and need not be p roved, only if
the same is admitted by the other side.
14. When the time for proving the documents could be avoided,
if the voluminous documents are received if admitted, then no
prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/accused in allowing the
complainant to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh
petition. Admittedly when neither any stage has been prescribed nor is
there any restriction limiting the number of petitions to be filed under
Section 294, the trial Court had rightly allowed the comp lainant to
withdraw the petition with liberty.
______________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
15. It is to be noted that even though liberty is given and if at
all any fresh petition is to be filed by the complainant, e ven then the
petitioners will be called upon to admit or deny the do cuments and
unless it is admitted, it is for the complainant to prove the documents.
When an application is filed under Section 294 and in case the same is
resisted, then the Court will naturally consider as to w hether it is filed
at a belated stage adopting delay tactics to protract the trial or could
be allowed and ultimately orders will be passed on merits by
considering all facts and circumstances of the case. The refore, no
prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the order of the trial Court in
allowing the complainant to withdraw the petition with liberty.
16. In such circumstances, we find no error or infirmit y in the
order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Crimi nal Original
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the interim application stands
closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
09.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sri
______________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
To:
1.The VIII Additional City Civil Court
(Special Court CBI), Chennai.
2.The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India,
B-Wing, 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai - 600 006.
______________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Crl.O.P.No.8533 of 2026
09.04.2026
______________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis