ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.89/2023 by Sessions Judge, Ratlam whereby, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.3053/2014 dated 29.11.2023, allowing the complainant to lead secondary evidence in respect of a photocopy of the agreement, has been affirmed.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 Jitendra entered into an agreement on 1.10.2010, for sale of the land bearing Survey No.1059/1 ad-measuring 0.020 hectares for a consideration of Rs.11,64,000/-. According to this agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.2.2011, and on 19.5.2011, i.e., after expiry of the period as provided in the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of Nathulal and Bhagwatilal, which led the respondent No.1 Jitendra to file a private complaint, which was registered as Criminal Case No.RCT 3053/2014, in which, at the time of recording of evidence, the respondent No.1 by filing an application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act tried to exhibit the photocopy of the agreement dated 1.10.2010 contending that the same may be accepted as secondary evidence of the original agreement as the original one is lost and since he had already given a photocopy of the same to the concerned police station, he has obtained the photocopy of the said agreement from the said police station under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The application was allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2023, and a criminal revision preferred against the aforesaid order, before the District Court, has also been rejected, affirming the aforesaid order. Hence, this petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in holding that the document can be allowed to be exhibited under section 65 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that the complainant has deliberately not produced the original document, so as to avoid payment of stamp duty and its registration, which is compulsory under section 17(f) as amended by the State of M.P. It is also submitted that even otherwise, in the application filed under section 65 of the Evidence Act, the ingredients of section 65 of the Evidence Act have also not been pleaded and merely because the agreement has been obtained from the Police Station under the RTI Act, it cannot be said that the said agreement would be admissible in evidence.

5. Counsel has submitted that both the Courts have erred in relying upon the decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Singh v. Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwaha and others reported as 2015(2) M.P.L.J. 337 as the aforesaid case confines to public documents i.e. map of the house and building construction permission obtained from the Municipal Corporation, which are the public documents, whereas the present case purely refers to a private document between two parties.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar v. Deepchand and Ors. passed in M.P. No.1971 of 2022 dated 6.9.2023.

7. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to lead evidence in this regard even if the document is allowed to be exhibited.

8. Respondent No.1 has not appeared despite service of notice. Thus, the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the petitioner have gone unrebutted.

9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Be that as it may, taking into account the fact that in his application the complainant has not stated that the photocopy, which he has obtained from the Police Station, was prepared through mechanical process after comparing with the original, and what