Is Photocopy of Cheque Admissible in NI Act Cases?

In the fast-paced world of business transactions, bounced cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, are common disputes. But what happens when the original cheque goes missing? Can a simple photocopy step in as evidence? This question—Whether Photocopy of Cheque is Admissible in NI Act Cases—arises frequently in courtrooms across India. While photocopies aren't primary evidence, they may serve as secondary evidence under certain conditions. This post breaks down the legal framework, key precedents, and practical strategies, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Legal Framework Governing Admissibility

The admissibility of documents in Indian courts, including NI Act cases, is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A photocopy of a cheque qualifies as secondary evidence under Section 63, which defines it as copies made from the original by mechanical processes or otherwise.

Section 65 outlines when secondary evidence may be admitted:- When the original is lost or destroyed.- When the original is in the opponent's possession and they fail to produce it after notice.- When the original is not easily movable.

In cases (a), (c), and (d) of Section 65, any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible. Ishwar Sharan Tripathi VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2290Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9220 - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9220Shiv Kumar Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 633

For NI Act proceedings, especially Section 138 cheque dishonour cases, the cheque is central evidence. Courts typically require the original, but secondary evidence like photocopies can be introduced if prerequisites are met. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: Ishwar Sharan Tripathi VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2290

Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Key Distinctions

• Primary Evidence: The original cheque itself, which carries the highest evidentiary value.
• Secondary Evidence: Photocopies, counterparts, or oral accounts. A photocopy is secondary and admissible only if the party proves the original's loss or unavailability and the copy's authenticityGurusharan Sahu S/o Late Awadh Ram Sahu VS Chumman Lal Sinha S/o Late Khamhan Lal Sinha - ChhattisgarhBalkrishna Chourasiya VS Rajesh Vaidhya - Madhya Pradesh.

The party must explain the circumstances of the photocopy's preparation and confirm it's an exact copy of the original. Gurusharan Sahu S/o Late Awadh Ram Sahu VS Chumman Lal Sinha S/o Late Khamhan Lal Sinha - Chhattisgarh Courts scrutinize whether the photocopy was made from the original copy of the documents by mechanical process and the copies compared with such copies. Shiv Kumar Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 633

Importantly, a photocopy of a copy is generally not admissible. It is a well settled principle of law that a Photocopy of a copy is not admissible in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Narendra Prasad VS Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3655 - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3655Narendra Prasad VS Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited, Express Towers - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4919 - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4919

Judicial Precedents on Photocopy Admissibility

Indian courts have addressed this issue in numerous NI Act cases, balancing evidentiary rigor with practical justice.

Cases Allowing Admissibility

1. In one ruling, a trial court permitted marking a photocopy as secondary evidence after the complainant proved the original was misplaced. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd, Mumbai Rep. by its Managing Director Tulsi Goyal VS State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Andhra Pradesh
2. The Kerala High Court held that rejecting prosecution under Section 138 based solely on a photocopy is not legally tenable. Considering the nature of documents sought to be produced, I am of the view that the observation of the learned Magistrate that prosecution under 138 of N.I.Act cannot be made on the photocopy of the cheque is not legally tenable. MARYKUTTY vs THE STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62615MARYKUTTY Versus THE STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6768
3. Secondary evidence was allowed where the original cheque was lost, emphasizing proof of authenticity. Gurusharan Sahu S/o Late Awadh Ram Sahu VS Chumman Lal Sinha S/o Late Khamhan Lal Sinha - Chhattisgarh

Cases Rejecting Admissibility

1. A petition was dismissed when conditions under the Evidence Act weren't established. S. Gopal VS D. Balachandran - Madras
2. Photocopies were rejected due to insufficient proof of the original's loss and lack of authenticity verification. Gurusharan Sahu S/o Late Awadh Ram Sahu VS Chumman Lal Sinha S/o Late Khamhan Lal Sinha - Chhattisgarh
3. A cheque return memo photocopy was deemed not admissible in law and cannot be look into. GUNEET BHASIN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2022 Supreme(Del) 818 - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 818

These precedents underscore that admissibility hinges on strict compliance with Evidence Act provisions. Whether the evidence so adduced is admissible or relevant is a question that will have to be decided after an appreciation of the relevant document. MARYKUTTY vs THE STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62615

Requirements for Introducing a Photocopy in Court

To successfully tender a photocopy in NI Act cases:- Prove Loss of Original: File an affidavit, police complaint, or bank records showing the cheque was lost or returned after dishonour.- Establish Authenticity: Provide witness testimony on how/when the photocopy was made. Demonstrate it matches the original via mechanical process.- Supporting Evidence: Bank memos, transaction records, or witness statements corroborating the cheque's issuance and dishonour. Amitabh Saikia, S/o. Late Pabitra Kumar Saikia VS Debojit Gogoi @ Debajit Gogoi, S/o. Sri Harendra Nath Gogoi - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1240- Notice to Opponent: Serve notice demanding production of the original if in their possession.

Failure to meet these can lead to rejection: This was opposed on the ground that the photocopy is not admissible in evidence unless the necessary requirements provided under the Evidence Act are fulfilled. Vijendra Singh VS Deena - 2013 Supreme(MP) 113 - 2013 0 Supreme(MP) 113

In some instances, courts direct the complainant to appear and be examined under oath before issuing process under Section 138. GUNEET BHASIN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2022 Supreme(Del) 818 - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 818

Practical Implications for Litigants

For complainants in cheque bounce cases:- Preserve Originals: Always retain the original cheque post-dishonour.- Prepare Backups: Make certified photocopies immediately and note details.- Gather Corroboration: Collect bank statements, communications, and witnesses.

Defendants can challenge by demanding the original or cross-examining on authenticity. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence. Amitabh Saikia, S/o. Late Pabitra Kumar Saikia VS Debojit Gogoi @ Debajit Gogoi, S/o. Sri Harendra Nath Gogoi - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1240

While photocopies have been pivotal in prosecutions, courts remain cautious. Photocopy of the cheque issued is also placed on record. Sukhmander Singh VS State of Punjab - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 1472 - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1472 But mere placement isn't enough—proof is paramount.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

A photocopy of a cheque may be admissible in NI Act cases as secondary evidence if the original's loss is proven and the copy's accuracy is verified under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Judicial trends favor flexibility when conditions are met, preventing technical dismissals in genuine cases. However, outcomes vary by facts and proof quality.

Key Takeaways:- Always prioritize originals; use photocopies only as fallback.- Bolster with affidavits, witnesses, and bank records.- Courts assess on case merits—authenticity is non-negotiable.

This analysis draws from reported judgments and is for informational purposes. Legal outcomes depend on specific circumstances. Seek professional advice.

References

Gurusharan Sahu S/o Late Awadh Ram Sahu VS Chumman Lal Sinha S/o Late Khamhan Lal Sinha - ChhattisgarhEnkay Texofood Industries Ltd, Mumbai Rep. by its Managing Director Tulsi Goyal VS State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Andhra PradeshBalkrishna Chourasiya VS Rajesh Vaidhya - Madhya PradeshS. Gopal VS D. Balachandran - MadrasGUNEET BHASIN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2022 Supreme(Del) 818 - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 818Ishwar Sharan Tripathi VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2290MARYKUTTY vs THE STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62615MARYKUTTY Versus THE STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6768Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9220 - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9220Shiv Kumar Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 633Amitabh Saikia, S/o. Late Pabitra Kumar Saikia VS Debojit Gogoi @ Debajit Gogoi, S/o. Sri Harendra Nath Gogoi - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1240Narendra Prasad VS Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3655 - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3655Mata Vaishno Finsec (P) Ltd. VS Shailender - 2015 Supreme(Del) 3686 - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 3686Vijendra Singh VS Deena - 2013 Supreme(MP) 113 - 2013 0 Supreme(MP) 113Narendra Prasad VS Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited, Express Towers - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4919 - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4919Sukhmander Singh VS State of Punjab - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 1472 - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1472

#NIAct, #ChequeBounce, #LegalEvidence