Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Definition of Certified Copy: A certified copy is a copy of a document or record, signed or certified as true by an officer authorized to hold the original (Black’s Dictionary, Sher Khan VS Jitendra - Madhya Pradesh). It is often a copy of a registration entry or a public document, not the original itself (Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - Calcutta, Appaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme Court).
Secondary Evidence: Under Indian Evidence Law, secondary evidence includes certified copies, copies made by mechanical processes that ensure accuracy, and copies compared with such copies (Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna, Sher Khan VS Jitendra - Madhya Pradesh, Vishnu Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Prasanath Singh VS Mukteshwar Rai, S/o. Sankatha Rai - Chhattisgarh, Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan, Ishwar Sharan Tripathi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases).
Conditions for Admissibility:
Mere photocopies or ordinary copies without certification or comparison are generally not admissible as secondary evidence (Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna, Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases, Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh).
Photostat and Mechanical Copies: Photostat copies or photocopies are admissible only if they are certified as true copies, made from the original, and compared with the original or produced through mechanical means that guarantee accuracy (Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan, Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases).
Comparison with Original: Copies transcribed from a copy, but subsequently compared with the original, qualify as secondary evidence. Without such comparison, copies are not considered secondary evidence (Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna, Vishnu Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Prasanath Singh VS Mukteshwar Rai, S/o. Sankatha Rai - Chhattisgarh, Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan, Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh).
Exceptions & Limitations:
Certified copies of public documents, such as registration entries, are admissible even if the original is unavailable, provided they are properly certified (Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - Calcutta, Appaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme Court).
Practical Considerations:
A certified copy of a document can be admitted as secondary evidence if it meets specific criteria: it must be a true copy, made from the original or through a mechanical process that ensures accuracy, and it must be compared with the original or certified by an authorized officer (Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna, Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan, Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases). Simply producing a photocopy without certification or comparison is insufficient for evidentiary purposes.
In legal proceedings, certified copies are particularly valuable when the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, provided they are properly authenticated (Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - Calcutta, Appaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme Court). The court emphasizes the importance of establishing the authenticity of such copies through comparison or certification to prevent misuse or fabrication.
In summary, for a copy of documentary evidence to be considered as Exhibit and to be comparable with the original, it must be a certified copy made from the original or through a mechanical process, and it must be properly authenticated. Oral attestations or uncertified photocopies are generally not accepted as secondary evidence (Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna, Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases, Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan).
In legal proceedings, documentary evidence plays a pivotal role. But what happens when the original document isn't available? Can a certified copy step in as a reliable exhibit? This is a common dilemma: Certified Copy of Documentary Evidence while Exhibit as Evidence should be Compared with Original. Understanding the nuances under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is crucial for lawyers, litigants, and anyone involved in court cases. This post breaks down the legal principles, admissibility rules, case insights, and practical recommendations—generally speaking, as laws can vary by context.
We'll explore why originals are preferred, when certified copies qualify as secondary evidence, and the critical role of comparison with the original. Whether you're challenging a photocopy or relying on a certified document, these guidelines can help safeguard your case.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, primary evidence—typically the original document—is the gold standard. Section 64 mandates that ordinarily the original should be produced, because a copy may contain omissions or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature Karuna Deka S/o Late Jitram Deka VS State of Assam, Through the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 322 - 2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 322Martin VS State rep by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 578 - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 578. This underscores the risk of inaccuracies in copies.
Certified copies can serve as secondary evidence under Section 63, but strict conditions apply. They are admissible if:- The original is lost, destroyed, or not easily movable Ishwarlal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2021).- The copy is properly certified by an authorized officer, such as for public documents like registration entries Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - CalcuttaAppaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme Court.
However, a mere photocopy or xerox isn't enough. It must be shown to have been made from the original or compared with the original PAL SINGH @ PALA @ LAKKAR @ HARPAL SINGH VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Uttarakhand (2021)Praneet Bhati VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Uttarakhand (2021). Without this foundation, the document is inadmissible Md. Rustam VS State of Bihar - Patna (2019)Kabita Bose VS Timir Baran Haldar - Calcutta (1991).
Key Requirements from Section 63:1. Certified copies.2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes (e.g., photography, ensuring accuracy) SAUDUL AZEEZ VS DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR - Allahabad (1999).3. Copies compared with the original MOHD. HUSAIN @ MUNNOO VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 Supreme(All) 1966 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1966.
As noted, a copy transcribed from a copy, which was compared with the original may be treated as original evidence, but the copy not compared with the original cannot be treated as secondary evidence MOHD. HUSAIN @ MUNNOO VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 Supreme(All) 1966 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1966. Illustrations clarify: a photograph of an original even if not compared with original may be a secondary evidence if what was photographed was the original; (b) a copy compared with a copy made by a copying machine from the original is a secondary evidence; (c) a copy transcribed from a copy and compared with original is a secondary evidence, but the copy not so compared with the original... is not Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited VS Badri Nath Khanna - 2014 Supreme(All) 3109 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 3109.
Courts rigorously scrutinize whether secondary evidence matches the original. The court must ensure that any secondary evidence, such as a photocopy, is either made from the original or compared with it. If this foundation is not laid, the document is inadmissible PAL SINGH @ PALA @ LAKKAR @ HARPAL SINGH VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Uttarakhand (2021)Praneet Bhati VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Uttarakhand (2021)Md. Rustam VS State of Bihar - Patna (2019). In one instance, an exhibit was rejected because This exhibit was not compared even with the certified copy of the voter lists extract, not to speak of the primary evidence i.e. the electoral roll in original Jamiran Bibi VS Union of India - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 1351 - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 1351.
Photostat or mechanical copies may qualify if certified as true and compared, but uncertified ones fail Sultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - RajasthanSantosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil CasesJanardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna. Oral attestations don't count as secondary evidence Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - PatnaVishnu Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Prasanath Singh VS Mukteshwar Rai, S/o. Sankatha Rai - Chhattisgarh.
Judicial precedents reinforce these rules. In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, the court stressed that even exhibited documents can be challenged via cross-examination, with admissibility determined by evidence Anupam Jain w/o Shri Rakesh Jain VS Kulwant Gupta w/o Shri Surinder Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2015). Sarkar on Evidence advises raising objections to proof mode before marking as an exhibit, or they may be waived Dayamathi Bai VS K. M. Shaffi - Supreme Court (2004).
Certified copies of public documents are often admissible without the original if properly authenticated Chandreshbhai Dhanrajbhai Jethani VS Mihirbhai Bhikhabhai Virani - Gujarat. Yet, the source and preparation circumstances must be explained, or authenticity can be contested Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases.
Exceptions and Limitations:- When originals are unavailable (lost/destroyed), certified copies shine if authenticated Faijur Rahman @ Faizar Rahman VS Union Of India - Gauhati (2023)Ishwarlal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2021)Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - Calcutta.- Mere ordinary copies without certification or comparison are typically inadmissible Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh.
Exhibits aren't sacrosanct. Objections must be timely—at the trial stage. Failure to object may waive challenges later Dayamathi Bai VS K. M. Shaffi - Supreme Court (2004). During cross-examination, prove the copy wasn't compared, and it could be discarded Anupam Jain w/o Shri Rakesh Jain VS Kulwant Gupta w/o Shri Surinder Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2015).
Pro Tip for Litigants: Always demand proof of comparison. For your side, accompany certified copies with affidavits or witness testimony confirming the match.
To navigate this effectively:- Presenting Evidence: Provide evidence of comparison or mechanical accuracy for certified copies Faijur Rahman @ Faizar Rahman VS Union Of India - Gauhati (2023)SAUDUL AZEEZ VS DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR - Allahabad (1999).- Challenging Opponent's Evidence: Question photocopies lacking certification or comparison proof PAL SINGH @ PALA @ LAKKAR @ HARPAL SINGH VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Uttarakhand (2021)Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases.- Preserve Objections: Raise admissibility issues early to avoid waiver Dayamathi Bai VS K. M. Shaffi - Supreme Court (2004).- Public Documents: Leverage certified copies confidently, as they often bypass original production Appaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme Court.
Generally, certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence when originals are unavailable, but they must be compared with the original or made via accurate mechanical means to ensure reliability Ishwarlal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2021)Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - PatnaSultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - Rajasthan. Photocopies without this backing are risky and often rejected Praneet Bhati VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Uttarakhand (2021)Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh.
In summary:- Originals preferred under Sections 60 and 64 Karuna Deka S/o Late Jitram Deka VS State of Assam, Through the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 322 - 2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 322.- Certified copies valid if authenticated and compared MOHD. HUSAIN @ MUNNOO VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 Supreme(All) 1966 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1966Santosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil Cases.- Raise timely objections for challenges Anupam Jain w/o Shri Rakesh Jain VS Kulwant Gupta w/o Shri Surinder Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2015).
This framework prevents fabrication and upholds justice. However, this is general information based on precedents—not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case, as outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction.
References: Faijur Rahman @ Faizar Rahman VS Union Of India - Gauhati (2023)Ishwarlal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2021)SAUDUL AZEEZ VS DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR - Allahabad (1999)PAL SINGH @ PALA @ LAKKAR @ HARPAL SINGH VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Uttarakhand (2021)Praneet Bhati VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Uttarakhand (2021)Dayamathi Bai VS K. M. Shaffi - Supreme Court (2004)Anupam Jain w/o Shri Rakesh Jain VS Kulwant Gupta w/o Shri Surinder Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2015)Kabita Bose VS Timir Baran Haldar - Calcutta (1991)Md. Rustam VS State of Bihar - Patna (2019)Karuna Deka S/o Late Jitram Deka VS State of Assam, Through the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 322 - 2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 322Martin VS State rep by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 578 - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 578Jamiran Bibi VS Union of India - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 1351 - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 1351MOHD. HUSAIN @ MUNNOO VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 Supreme(All) 1966 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1966Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited VS Badri Nath Khanna - 2014 Supreme(All) 3109 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 3109Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - PatnaSultana W/o Late Taj Mohammed VS Murli Manohar Paliwal S/o Late Ram Chandra - RajasthanSantosh Chouhan VS Yashwant - Current Civil CasesShanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - CalcuttaAppaiya VS Andimuthu@ Thangapandi - Supreme CourtChandreshbhai Dhanrajbhai Jethani VS Mihirbhai Bhikhabhai Virani - GujaratSanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha VS State of H. P. - Himachal PradeshVishnu Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Prasanath Singh VS Mukteshwar Rai, S/o. Sankatha Rai - Chhattisgarh
#IndianEvidenceAct #SecondaryEvidence #LegalDocuments
(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 ac....
Even otherwise, it is interesting to note that in Black’s Dictionary, the meaning of “certified copy” is as under:- “Certified copy” - a copy of a document or record, signed or certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody original is entrusted.” ... (b) A copy compared with a copy....
(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. ... The secondary ....
The upshot of the above discussion is that a photo-stat copy of a carbon copy made from the original by mechanical process is admissible in evidence, provided that it is compared with the carbon copy within the meaning of secondary evidence, as defined under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, but ... (2) copies made from the original#HL_....
In this context it is to be noted that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible ... The plaintiffs/petitioners herein took out an....
receipt dated 21/03/2009 of advertisement stating original documents lost in ‘Akila’ newspaper, original/certified copy of proposed public notice, office copy of query list of Advocate Devmurari and certified copy of Utrotar Title deeds along with other documentary evidence with the plaint. ... The petitioner has produced a photocopy ....
Section 77 provides for the production of certified copy of a public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original. ... In this context it is to be noted that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy o....
–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 accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; ... In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence....
(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. ... Correctness of ....
From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has rightly held that photocopy of certain documents are neither certified copy of the original, nor got prepared from the original by mechanical process and compared with the original, which ensures the accuracy of the said document ... The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundationa....
If it is documentary evidence, the Evidence Act requires that ordinarily the original should be produced, because a copy may contain omissions or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature. If it is a case of oral evidence, the Act requires that only that person who has actually perceived something by that sense, by which it is capable of perception, should make the statement about it and no one else. These principles are expressed in Sections 60 and 64 of the Evidence Act....
These principles are expressed in Sections 60 and 64 of the Evidence Act." If it is documentary evidence, the Evidence Act requires that ordinarily the original should be produced, because a copy may contain omissions or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature. If it is a case of oral evidence, the Act requires that only that person who has actually perceived something by that sense, by which it is capable of perception, should make the statement about it and no one els....
They were residents of Madhusoulmari Part-2 village (Gauripur Constituency). Therefore, such a document has hardly any probative value. This exhibit was not compared even with the certified copy of the voter lists extract, not to speak of the primary evidence i.e. the electoral roll in original.
Again illustration (c) shows that a copy transcribed from a copy, which was compared with the original may be treated as original evidence, but the copy not compared with the original cannot be treated as secondary evidence, although the copy was transcribed and compared with the original. We, therefore, find that even if it could be held that secondary evidence may be admissible, where the primary evidence is missing, as the same has been destroyed or lost, the documents, wh....
These have been illustrated thereunder as (a) a photograph of an original even if not compared with original may be a secondary evidence if what was photographed was the original : (b) a copy compared with a copy made by a copying machine from the original is a secondary evidence ; (c) a copy transcribed from a copy and compared with original is a secondary evidence, but the copy not so compared with the original, though copied from a copy so compared with the original is not a secon....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
