There Can Be Manipulation In Photocopies: Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Plea To Examine Photocopy Of Agreement As Secondary Evidence
The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a plea to examine photocopy of an agreement as secondary evidence.
The Court observed that though photostat copy is being obtained by the mechanical process, but it does not insure the accuracy of the copy as there can be manipulation in the photo copies.
Although the Supreme Court in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 laid down that a photostat copy could be treated as secondary evidence, the High Court explained that the plaintiff did not move an application under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) to give a notice to produce a document to the defendant and neither was any affidavit in support of contents filed.
A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed, “From bare perusal of Section 66 of the Act, 1872 it is quite vivid that secondary evidence of the contents of the documents preferred in Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872 shall not be given unless parties supposing to give such evidence as previously given party in whose possession the document is available, such notice should be produced in accordance with law. This was also required to be followed by the plaintif which he has not done.”
The Court further noted: "From bare perusal of Section 63 of the Act, 1872 it is quite vivid that the copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or compared with the original will be treated as secondary evidence. Though photostat copy is being obtained by the mechanical process, but it does not insure the accuracy of the copy as there can be manipulation in the photo copies. Even otherwise the photostat copy of the document cannot be admitted in evidence unless the genuineness of the same was not admitted by other side."
Advocate Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal represented the petitioner, while Advocate Abhijeet Mishra appeared for the respondents.
The trial court had rejected a photo copy of an agreement filed as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act.
Since the defendant had objected towards the existence and execution of the original document, the Court pointed out that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to “lead the foundation for examining the secondary evidence.”
In order to examine the validity of the impugned order of the trial court, the High Court had to examine whether the photostat copy could be termed as secondary evidence and whether the photostat copy presented laid the condition required to examine secondary evidence in the court.
The Bench remarked, “Though photostat copy is being obtained by the mechanical process, but it does not insure the accuracy of the copy as there can be manipulation in the photo copies. Even otherwise the photostat copy of the document cannot be admitted in evidence unless the genuineness of the same was not admitted by other side.”
Consequently, the Court held that “it is quite vivid that the petitioner has not laid foundation for examining the secondary evidence, as such the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application iled by the petitioner/plaintif under Section 65 of the Act, 1872.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Vishnu Pratap Singh v. Mukteshwar Rai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:15491)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal and Akhtar Hussain
Respondents: Abhijeet Mishra
