( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5 at Ahmedabad on 4-9-86 on application filed in Criminal Case No. 1793/83.

( 2 ) IN a nutshell it may be stated that the petitioner, who is the original complainant has filed the Complaint in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad against the opponents 2 and 3 (original accused) for the offences under S. 420 read with S. 34 and/or S. 109 of the I. P. C. and the said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 1793/83. It is alleged that the accused 1 and 2 who are present opponents 2 and 3 had previously sold land to one Mahobatsing Mansing Jadeja by a registered sale deed and they suppressed this material fact from the present petitioner (original complainant) and induced the complainant to part with the amount of Rs. 72,500/ -.

( 3 ) DURING the course of the proceedings an application was preferred for producing certain documents and for exhibiting the same if the other side i. e. the accused have no objection. The said application was filed by the original complainant. Along with the said application he has produced 14 documents as described therein. Before the learned Magistrate the dispute was with regard to exhibiting of documents at Sl. Nos. 4, 6, 9 and 12. The learned Magistrate by his order dt. 4-9-86 dismissed the said application in respect of the aforesaid four documents on the ground that they are not public documents and therefore the contents thereof cannot be proved by the certified copies thereof.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing Mr. A. D. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed his application only for the documents at Sr. Nos. 6 and 9. So far as the document at Sl. No. 6 is concerned, it is the certified copy of the sale deed of the disputed land executed in favour of Mahobatsing Mansing Jadeja on 19-12-1970. The document at Sl. No. 9 in the certified copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 22/82 filed by the complainant against said Mahobatsing Mansing Jadeja and it is dt. 6-1-1982.

( 5 ) MR. A. D. Shah further submits that the certified copies of the said two documents i. e. documents at Sl. Nos. 6 and 9 are admissible in evidence as they fall within the category of public documents and contents thereof can be proved under S. 77 of the Evidence Act by producing certified copies thereof.

( 6 ) IT may be stated that so far as the proving of the contents of the documents is concerned, it is provided in Chap. V of the Evidence Act. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Section 62 of the Evidence Act defines what is primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. The definition of secondary evidence inter alia includes the certified copies given under the provisions contained in the said Act. Section 65 of the said Act also provides that secondary evidence may be given of the existing condition or contents of a document in the cases enumerated therein, inter alia, when the original document is a public document within the meaning of S. 74 of the said Act and when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence. So, secondary evidence in respect of a document can be given by certified copy of the document inter alia in cases enumerated in Cls. (a) to (f) of S. 65 of the said Act, and in cases falling under Cls. (e) and (f) of S. 65 of the Act the certified copy of the document and no other kind of secondary evidence is permissible. Section 74 of the said Act specifies the documents which are public documents and Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 74 provides that public records kept in State of private documents are public documents. Private documents are defined as those documents which are not falling within the category of pub