J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A photocopy, which is not attested or even certified as a true copy, was attempted to be pressed into service and marked in the suit before the court below. It seems that the court below has denied such an opportunity to the petitioner. The said refusal by the court below is under challenge.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the photocopy of a document is admissible in evidence as secondary evidence within the meaning of Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when the original is not available. Section 63(2) says that “Copies OPC.3040/2014 made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies”. The provision is self speaking. Without a certification of the correctness of the said copy, the same cannot be pressed into service by way of secondary evidence. The provision is clearly explained in paragraph 9 of the decision reported in Thampy T.V. Vs. Varkey Emmanuel [2005 (3) KLJ 144]. In that case, it was held that there was no proof of the accuracy of the ph