1. The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Ist Additional Judge to the Court of Vth Additional Session Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.36/2009 whereby the impugned order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.3509/1997 was set aside and the application filed under sections 65, 74, 78 and 79 of the Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was allowed.

2. The facts of the case in short are that a prosecution was launched before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in 1996 that the applicants did not pay the Excise duty of Rs.4,78,000/- and therefore, they were prosecuted under section 9 of the Central Excise Act. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of CJM, Chhindwara according to its territorial jurisdiction. When the evidence of the complainant was started an application was moved by the prosecution under sections 65, 74, 78 and 79 of the Evidence Act read with section 35A of the Act.

3. The trial Court after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application and thereafter, a revision was filed by the prosecution. The revisionary Court vide the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara and allowed the application.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted in detail that such type of application could not be accepted because the original documents were in the custody of the prosecution itself and therefore, no secondary evidence could be adduced. In support of their contention reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of “Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal” (AIR 1992 SC 96) and also a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Smt. Rekha Rana and others v. Smt. Ratnashree Jain” 2006 (2) JLJ 275 = (AIR 2006 M.P 107) was referred.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that looking to the special provisions of sections 36A and 36B of the Act the prosecution was entitled to prove the documents without submitting the original documents.

7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly discussed the matter in detail. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The judgments and orders passed in the case of Smt. Rekha Rana (supra) and Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (supra) cannot be applied in the present case because in those orders an interpretation of the general provisions of the Evidence Act was given. In both the judgments special provisions under sections 36A and 36B of the Act were not considered. It is settled law that if any provision is given in a Special Act which is contrary to the provisions of the general law then the special law shall supersede the provisions of the general law. Under such circumstances, looking at the provisions of section 36A and 36B of the Act, the prosecution not only could file copy of the documents as mentioned under section 36B of the Act but, prove such copies as original. There is no need to file or show the original documents before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the application of the prosecution appears to be a formality. The prosecution could prove the copies of the documents as mentioned under sections 36B of the Act and therefore, if the revisionary Court has accepted the application filed by the prosecution then no illegality or perversity has been done by the revisionary Court.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion since there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicants can be accepted. The present revision is her