The admissibility of photocopies as evidence in criminal proceedings can be re-evaluated to ensure a fair trial.

Order

04/08/2025 By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“A. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed; the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 i.e. Annexure-1, passed by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Udaipur in Criminal Revision Case No.69/25 – Ankur Jain Vs. Smt. Swati Jain, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application dated 14.08.2024 filed by the petitioner, under Section 94 of BNSS may kindly be allowed. ….”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque No.825659 dated 09.06.2017 of Punjab National Bank, Kalaji- Goraji Branch, Udaipur amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2. Upon presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement ‘Payment Stopped by Drawer’. The respondent No.2 thereafter, filed a complaint against the petitioner before the competent criminal Court under Section

138 of N.I. Act.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been contesting the said complaint. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 14.08.2024 for placing on record a copy of an agreement dated 05.12.2016 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2 concerning the cheque in question. Drawing attention of the Court towards the documents attached with the case file, learned counsel contended that the agreement dated 05.12.2016 is germane to decide the controversy at hand as it clearly states that the cheque in question was misplaced by the respondent No.2 and she promised to return the same to the petitioner on being traced/found. Learned counsel submitted that the agreement dated 05.12.2016 bears signatures of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner. An original copy of the agreement is in possession of respondent No.2 and the petitioner is only possessing photocopy thereof. 4. The learned trial Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the original agreement dated 05.12.2016 has not been produced before the Court; the stamp upon which the alleged agreement has been executed was purchased for the purpose of some partnership deed. Thus, neither the said document can be taken on record nor the petitioner can be permitted to lead evidence/secondary evidence on the basis of aforesaid document.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court dated 27.08.2024 preferred a revision petition being Criminal Revision No.69/2025 titled as “Ankur Jain v. Smt. Swati Jain”. The revisional Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 dismissed the Revision while affirming the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned trial Court mainly on the ground that the document sought to be placed on record is a photocopy of the original document only.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

7. Section 138 of N.I. Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such