ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the rejection of the objection raised by applicant with regard to the admissibility of certified copy of Articles A-5 and A-6 which were exhibited in spite of his objection.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that Articles A-5 and A-6 were not filed along with charge-sheet and they were also not mentioned in the list of documents. It appears that when summon was issued to the concerning witness namely Major Gajraj Singh (Retired) (P.W.-18), he was directed to produce the record pertaining to the ID. It is submitted that this witness had brought the certified copy of the record and had not brought the original copy of the record and, therefore, certified copy of Articles A-5 and A-6 could not have been exhibited. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the applicant was entitled for an opportunity to challenge the genuineness of the documents.

3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State as well as the complainant. However, it was fairly conceded by counsel for complainant that provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. were not followed before exhibiting Articles A-5 and A-6. It was also submitted by counsel for the complainant that since secondary evidence can be led, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any mistake by exhibiting the certified copy of the documents.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties.

5. Section 294 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “294. No formal proof of certain documents.— (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of 3 M.Cr.C. No.8090/2021 every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed:

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”

6. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

7. It is clear from paragraph 5 of his cross-examination that he had received a notice from the Court that he has to bring the certificate which was issued by him and further admitted that he has not brought the original record of Article A-5 but he has merely brought the certified copy of the same. Thus, it is clear that this witness has not produced Articles A-5 and A-6 on his own but the Court while issuing summons to him had directed to produce the documents. Even otherwise, the trial 4 M.Cr.C. No.8090/2021 Court has power to summon any ocular or documentary evidence which according to it is necessary for just decision of the case.

8. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the certified copy of Article A-5 could have been exhibited or not?

9. Section 63 of Evidence Act reads as under:-

“63. Secondary evidence. –– Secondary evidence means and includes –– (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accu