Karnataka High Court Directs Trial Judges to Enforce Section 294(3) CrPC to Cut Delays in CBI Trials
The Karnataka High Court has directed trial judges to make effective use of Section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent avoidable delays in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving voluminous documentary evidence such as those investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The direction came in a case involving a CBI prosecution that had remained pending since 2013.
Justice V. Srishananda issued the directions while considering a petition filed by a Port Officer challenging a 2013 charge sheet in Special C.C. No. 268/2013 before the 32nd Additional City Civil and Special Judge, CBI, Bengaluru. The petitioner had relied on the prolonged pendency of the proceedings and raised the issue of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The CBI told the High Court that the delay could not be attributed entirely to the prosecution. It informed the Court that 54 witnesses had already been examined and that the remaining proceedings could be completed within about three months, provided the parties cooperated with the trial.
Rather than quashing the proceedings, the High Court granted the trial court time until the end of December 2026 to complete the case. The Court also directed the parties to cooperate in expediting the trial, including by admitting and marking documents whose genuineness was not disputed and by avoiding the examination of unnecessary witnesses.
The central procedural issue was Section 294(3) CrPC. The provision permits a document whose genuineness is not disputed to be read in evidence without formally proving the signature of the person by whom it purports to have been signed. The Court noted that the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is Section 330(3).
The High Court observed that Section 294(3) is “hardly put to use” in trials and stressed that its proper application can substantially reduce unnecessary formal evidence. In document-heavy CBI prosecutions, requiring witnesses merely to formally establish documents whose genuineness is undisputed can consume considerable judicial time without serving a corresponding evidentiary purpose.
The Court therefore directed trial judges to adhere to the statutory mechanism in pending trials. It indicated that the exercise should preferably be undertaken at the commencement of the trial, allowing undisputed documents to be marked by consent and unnecessary witnesses to be dropped.
The direction is also consistent with the established purpose of Section 294. Earlier Karnataka High Court jurisprudence has described the provision as a mechanism intended to accelerate trials by dispensing with formal proof where the genuineness of a document is not disputed.
The Court further directed that a copy of its order be circulated to the District Judiciary and the Karnataka Judicial Academy, subject to approval of the Chief Justice, so that the approach can be followed in appropriate pending trials.
The judgment does not eliminate the requirement of proof where genuineness is actually disputed. Section 294(3) operates when the document’s genuineness is not challenged, while the Court retains discretion to require proof of a signature where circumstances warrant it.
The Karnataka High Court’s order consequently places emphasis on using an existing statutory procedure to address procedural delay rather than allowing lengthy documentary formalities to extend trials unnecessarily. In the particular CBI case, the immediate deadline fixed by the Court is the end of December 2026, with cooperation from the parties expected to facilitate completion.
