The admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence is subject to the conditions provided under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the prosecution must prove that the original documents have been lost or destroyed.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The applicant, in the instant C482 Application has put a challenge to the judgment/order dated 04.07.2023, which is said to have been passed in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2023, Dr. Swetabh Suman vs. State of Uttarakhand, as it has been rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 2724 of 2022, State vs. Swetabh Suman, which were the proceedings, being carried against the present applicant, for trying him for the offences under Sections 13(1)(e), Section 13(2) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, as well as Section 109 of IPC, which, at present, is pending trial before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, which has been put to challenge, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun, had proceeded to permit the State to lead its evidence by way of secondary evidence by taking on record the photocopies of certain documents, which were required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of an effective adjudication of the aforesaid Sessions Trial.

3. Brief facts of the case are, the applicant has contended that at the relevant point of time, when he was inducted into the services as back as in 2004, he had was appointed in the Indian Revenue Services and he contended that during his tenure of service, he had worked efficiently and diligently and according to his argument, his service records were clean and unblemished. But, however, later on a complaint which was filed by the office of the Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department on 17.01.2004, the allegations were leveled in the said complaint, which pertained to the set of act which were said to be conducted between 23.12.2004 to 07.01.2005, when in the complaint of 17.01.2004, it was observed by the complainant Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department, that 15 official files, which related to the service conditions of the applicant himself, were found to be stolen from the records of the department of the Income Tax and according to the general diary entry, made on 21.01.2005 since those documents, which were found to be missing, were having a vital bearing over the manner in which the services have been performed by the present applicant, all of it, had been deliberately stolen and were not found in the records of the department. Consequent to which, the FIR was registered, being FIR No. 18 of 2005 on 18.01.2005 with regard to the set of allegation, that the applicant was found to be instrumental in stealing those files, which were not found with the department having an effect on his departmental credibility.

4. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was carried and necessary investigation was completed on 04.04.2005, it is contended by the applicant that the SHO, Police Station, Dalanwala, Dehradun, had initially filed a final report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction, praying for closer of the case, as the investigation, as carried by the Investigating Officer didn’t find filed any credible material with regard to the allegations leveled in the FIR No. 18 of 2005, as against the present applicant, because the act of theft of the official records were not proved beyond doubt.

5. But, however, later on, on 02.08.2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation, had registered a Criminal Case against the present applicant i.e. Case No. RC 51 12005 A 0016, being the proceedings registered under Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(2) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to be read with Section 109 of IPC.

6. In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is contended by the respondent that the process of search and seizure was conducted by the respondent in the office and the residential premises of the applicant and the CBI department has claimed to recover five files of the total 15 missing files, which were