THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.318 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the Order dated 12.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.202 of 2024 in C.C.No.302481 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-

State and perused the record.

3. The learned Magistrate permitted respondent No.2/complainant to lead secondary evidence relating to documents, i.e., Photostat copies of postal returned envelopes and postal receipts, which were filed along with the complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was not disputed that the originals of the documents were filed before the Court below at the time of filing of the complaint. Learned Magistrate found that the case was transferred more than once to Courts for which reason the original documents, which were filed, were lost. In the said circumstances, learned Magistrate deemed it appropriate to invoke the provisions under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act.

4. It is relevant to refer Sections 63 and 65 of Evidence Act and the same are as follows:

“63. Secondary evidence Secondary evidence means and includes -(1)[certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;] [See Section 76,infra.]

(2)copies made from the original by the mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;

(3)copies made from or compared with the original;

(4)counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

(5)oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

Illustrations: (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.

(b)A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

(c)A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.

(d)Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original nor an oral account of a photograph or a machine copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.

65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases :

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

(b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

(d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;(e)When the original is a public document within the meaning of section

74;

(f)[When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] [[[Cf. the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), Section

4.]], to be given in evidence;

(g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Cou