The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a photocopy as secondary evidence under Section 65 and 63(2) of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the need to establish the loss of the original document and the accuracy and authenticity of the photocopy.

J.P. Gupta, J.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant for permitting to file a photocopy of the original document as a secondary evidence before the trial Court and further provide assistance to call for the records of the concerned bank account of the accused/respondent and record of the service of notice from the post-office, Sagar.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act which was registered as a complaint case No.4754/2012 in connection with dishonor of cheque of the amount of Rs. 11,50,000/-, in which it is also stated the original cheque dated 20.05.2012 along with other original documents were stolen from the shop of the applicant on 30.08.2012, in respect of which on 31.08.2012, an FIR bearing Crime No.330/2012 was also lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Sagar.

3. In view of the facts during the trial, the applicant filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permitting him to tender a photocopy of the original documents, which were stolen on 30.08.2012, as secondary evidence. That application was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2014 by the Trial Court. The said order was challenged by way of Cr. Revision No.250/2014 before the learned Second ASJ, Sagar. The Second Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.12.2014 allowed the Cri. Revision No.250/2014 and set aside the order of the trial court with the direction to decide the application under section 65 of the Evidence Act after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the case of Hazi Mohd Islam v. Ajgar Ali, 2007 AIR MP 157.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 04.09.2015 after hearing the parties dismissed the aforesaid application. Thereafter, another application filed by the applicant for calling the record from the Bank of Baroda, Sagar, regarding account of the respondent and record relating to service of notice from the Post Office, Sagar and record relating to FIR lodged by the applicant regarding the stolen documents. The said application was also rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2016. Again, the applicant filed an application on 18.04.2016 for permitting to produce a photocopy of the documents as secondary evidence. The said application was also rejected on 20.06.2016. Against the aforesaid orders dated 21.03.2016 and 20.06.2016, the applicant filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. The said Cri. Revision was also rejected by order dated 08.08.2016 passed in Cri. Revision No. 1300353/16 and 3900173/16. Being aggrieved with the order passed in aforesaid Cr.Rev., this petition has been filed.

5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent even though served and represented.

6. Having heard the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of record, following questions emerged for consideration:-

1. Whether, the photo-state copy of any relevant document whose original copy is lost, can be admitted as a secondary evidence ? If yes, then under what circumstances such permission can be given ?

2. Whether, refusing to call for the record from the bank and post office or Police Station and relevant witnesses is contrary to law or causing miscarriage of justice

7. The circumstances under which secondary evidence may be given of existence, condition or content of the documents have been enunciated in Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is stated that when the original document is destroyed or lost, secondary evidence may be given with regard to such document.

8. Section 63 (2) of Evidence Act prescribes that the copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy comes in the purview of secondary evidence. A document in the form of photocopy is a product of mechanical process and, if it is prepared from the original document t