IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56824 of 2025 RAJKUMAR SALVI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Devashish Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Harish Singh Rathore- G.A. for the State.

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Rajkumar Salvi under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, District Indore in S.T. No.621/2024, whereby, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 63 of the Evidence Act of 1872 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act of 1872”), for leading the secondary evidence, has been allowed.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial in connection with Crime No.171/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station M.G. Road, District Indore.

3] Admittedly, the aforesaid trial is at the stage of recording of the evidence, and on 31.07.2025, the prosecution filed an application under Section 63 of the Act of 1872, with a prayer that the photocopies of the documents mentioned under para 3 of the application may be taken on record as secondary evidence, on the ground that the original documents have been lost from the possession of Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC), and despite best efforts to retrieve the same, the documents could not be found. The prayer was opposed by the petitioner, however, the learned judge has allowed the same vide its order dated

30.10.2025 which is under challenge before this Court.

4] Shri Devashish Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge of the trial Court has allowed the photocopies of the documents, which have already been lost, to be received in evidence, which would seriously prejudice the case of the petitioner, as the prosecution has not filed the application narrating all the relevant factors for accepting the photocopies of the documents as secondary evidence.

5] Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that for filing an application under Section 63 of the Act of 1872 the two requisite conditions are; (i) that the photocopies were made from mechanical process (ii) the copies were compared with the original, but both these conditions have not been complied with, in such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

6] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. Deepchand and others passed in M.P.No.1971/2022, dated 6/9/2023, where the original documents were lost and an application was filed for producing the photocopies of the same in evidence, and this Court held that such documents cannot be taken into account as secondary evidence, unless the conditions enumerated under section 63(2) of the Act of 1872 are fulfilled. Thus, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the aforesaid impugned order be set aside.

7] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that looking to the huge amount involved, which runs into Crores of Rupees, no case for interference is made out. However, it could not be denied that the ingredients of section

63(2) of the Act of 1872 are missing from the application filed before the trial Court.

8] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, 9] On perusal of the application filed by the prosecution under Section 63 of the Act of 1872, it is found that the details of various documents (photocopies of the original/relevant documents) on which the prosecution seeks to rely on, have been given, and it is prayed in the application that the documents may be admitted as secondary evidence. This Court is of the considered opinion that such an appl