2026 (3) TMI 1029 - HC - Income Tax

Right to Inspection affirmed: originals of foreign documents placed on record; accused may inspect and contest admissibility.

Petitions challenged refusal to produce original/authenticated foreign documents relied on in prosecution under the Income-tax Act and IPC; statutory ... Multiple Complaints against the Petitioner alleging offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Right to disclosure of prosecution material - admissibility of foreign public documents to be determined at trial - inspection of judicial record by the accused Allegations originate from information purportedly obtained from the website “ICIJ.org,” claiming the Petitioner was a Director/Shareholder of a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity had undisclosed foreign assets Right to disclosure of prosecution material - Application for production of original/authenticated documents relied upon by the prosecution - HELD THAT: - The petitioner's grievance that only unauthenticated photocopies were supplied became infructuous because the Trial Court has subsequently allowed the prosecution to place the original/authenticated documents on the record. The Court recorded that the substratum of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order dismissing his production application is therefore extinguished, and that the accused may raise objections to authenticity or admissibility at the appropriate stage of trial. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 24] The challenge to the impugned order refusing production no longer survives because the originals/authenticated documents have been placed on the record; the petitioner may challenge authenticity at trial. Admissibility of foreign public documents to be determined at trial - Whether admissibility and evidentiary value of foreign public documents should be decided at the threshold - HELD THAT: - The Court affirmed that questions regarding the method of proof, authentication under the Evidence Act and the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, and the evidentiary value of documents obtained under exchange of information treaties are matters for determination at the stage of evidence. Such issues do not, by themselves, warrant dismissal of the complaint or discharge of the accused at the threshold; the accused retains the right to contest these issues during recording of evidence and cross-examination. [Paras 14, 21, 22] Admissibility and authentication of foreign documents to be adjudicated during trial; they are not grounds for threshold discharge. Inspection of judicial record by the accused - Entitlement of the accused to inspect originals/authenticated documents once placed on the judicial file - HELD THAT: - Once the original or authenticated documents are placed on the judicial record they form part of the court file. Applying general principles of criminal procedure, the accused is entitled to inspect the judicial file to prepare his defence, and the petitioner is granted liberty to inspect the newly filed documents in accordance with applicable rules. [Paras 23, 24] The accused is entitled to inspect the originals/authenticated documents on the judicial record; liberty granted to inspect them in accordance with rules. Final Conclusion: The petitions are disposed of as the Trial Court has placed the original/authenticated documents on record; questions of authentication and admissibility of those foreign documents are to be determined during trial, and the accused is entitled to inspect the documents to prepare his defence. Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's application seeking production of original/authenticated foreign documents and inspection thereof was impermissible, and whether the petitioner is entitled to inspection and to raise objections to admissibility/authentication of such documents.Analysis: The petitions challenge the Trial Court order refusing production/inspection of originals of foreign documents relied upon by the prosecution under proceedings for offences under the Income-tax Act and IPC. The legal framework includes Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding proof of foreign public documents, Section 279B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on admissibility of documents received by tax authorities, and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (including Sections 91 and 311) on placing documents on record. The petitions were filed when only photocopies were on record; subsequently the prosecution applied under Sections 91/311 Cr.P.C. and placed original/authenticated documents on the judicial record by order dated 05.12.2024. Where originals/authenticated documents have been produced and taken on record, the petitioner's grievance about non-production is extinguished. The determination of evidentiary value, authentication under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948, and the presumption under Section 279B are matters for adjudication at the stage of evidence; however, an accused retains the fundamental right to be supplied with material relied upon by the prosecution and to inspect the court file to prepare defence.Conclusion: The petitions challenging the Trial Court order dated 24.10.2019 on non-production of originals no longer survive because the original/authenticated documents have been placed on record by the prosecution and taken on record by the Trial Court; the petitioner is entitled to inspect those documents and to raise all admissibility and authentication objections at the appropriate stage of trial.