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…!
In the heat of a courtroom trial, documents often become central to arguments. But what happens when a party wants to introduce a photocopy—commonly known as a xerox copy—during cross-examination? Can it be marked as an exhibit? This question arises frequently in Indian litigation, balancing procedural convenience with evidentiary rigor.
If you're a lawyer, litigant, or simply curious about courtroom procedures, understanding this nuance is crucial. This post explores the legal framework, drawing from key judgments and the Indian Evidence Act, to clarify when and how xerox copies can be marked—and their evidentiary weight.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The question at hand is straightforward: Can a xerox copy be marked during the course of cross-examination? The short answer is yes, it can be marked as an exhibit, but with significant caveats. Marking is a procedural step for identification, not proof. Admissibility as evidence requires compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Sections 63 and 65 on secondary evidence. Sait Tarajee Khimchand VS Velamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 255Swetabh Suman VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 631
Courts permit marking xerox copies during cross-examination, but this does not automatically prove the document or make it admissible. As held in S.T. Khimchand v. Satyam, MERE MARKING OF AN EXHIBIT DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH PROOF IN EVIDENCE. Sait Tarajee Khimchand VS Velamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 255 The act of marking merely aids reference; the contents and authenticity must be proved separately.
Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence like xerox copies is admissible only if the original is lost, destroyed, or unavailable without the party's fault. The court must verify this, ensuring the copy is a true reproduction. Failure leads to rejection as substantive evidence. Swetabh Suman VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 631
In Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills, the court clarified that xerox copies aren't admissible just because marked; Section 65 conditions must be met. 02200049303
Judges scrutinize authenticity. In Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, courts must check if the xerox is genuine and statutory conditions fulfilled before admission. 02200049303 Without this, it's merely an identification tool.
Judgments consistently affirm marking during cross-examination but stress proof. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, objections to admissibility should be raised timely; marking alone isn't proof. 02200049303
These cases show courts routinely allow marking for confrontation, testing witness knowledge or signatures, but proof follows later. Jeyarathnam VS Samuel Nickson - MadrasOriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - Telangana
Xerox copies test authenticity during cross-examination but need verification for evidentiary value.
A xerox copy can be marked during cross-examination, but admissibility as evidence depends on Indian Evidence Act compliance, especially Section 65, and court verification. Cases like S.T. Khimchand v. SatyamSait Tarajee Khimchand VS Velamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 255 and others reinforce: marking ≠ proof.
Key Takeaways:- Permissible for identification/confrontation.- Requires secondary evidence foundation.- Courts verify; objections matter.- Always prove properly for substantive use.
Stay informed on evolving practices. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert.
#IndianEvidenceAct, #CrossExamination, #LegalIndia
During questioning, no doubt, the counsel for the party seeking cross examination has considerable leeway; cross examination is not confined to matters in issue, but extends to all relevant facts. ... Here, the main objection of the defendant is that the xerox copies of the Will cannot be read into the evidence. Therefore, the same can't be marked. ... Apart from Section 148, there are o....
It was further held that even if the documents are marked, are yet to be proved during the course of trial. ... It is submitted that the trial Court failed to see that the documents which are sought to be marked are Xerox copies of the printouts obtained from the computer and the original documents were not produced even at the time of filing of suit. ... In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ....
However, it is pertinent to mention here that the document marked as Ex.A-4 is a Xerox copy. Whether a Xerox copy of an instrument can be impounded is Page 9 of 12 2023:APHC:35708 not longer res integra. ... Plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and an advocate commissioner was appointed to record the cross examination of witness. ... ....
In the case on hand, the signature in the xerox copy of the unregistered family arrangement was only marked during the cross examination of P.W.1 by the defendant. ... The cross examination of D.W.1 commenced before the representation for marking of the document is completely false. In fact, the petitioner was absent for several hearings for cross #HL_....
In the case on hand, the signature in the xerox copy of the un- registered family arrangement was only marked during the cross examination of P.W.1 by the defendant. ... The cross examination of D.W.1 commenced before the representation for marking of the document is completely false. In fact, the petitioner was absent for several hearings for cross #....
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having overruled petitioners objection has marked a xerox/photostat copy of Deed of Co-ownership dated 15.05.1996 as Exhibit-345, in the cross-examination of the witness concerned; the contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition ... of trial, the subject document which is a xerox/photostat copy#HL_E....
The original of Ex.A.1 could not be marked and only a Xerox copy of the same was marked. ... This endorsement was marked as Ex.B.26 and cross-examination was conducted in relation to these documents. The trial Court recorded that DW.1 was cross-examined three times after marking of these documents and the matter was posted for arguments. ... Elaborate....
The original of Ex.A.1 could not be marked and only a Xerox copy of the same was marked. ... This endorsement was marked as Ex.B.26 and cross-examination was conducted in relation to these documents. The trial Court recorded that DW.1 was cross-examined three times after marking of these documents and the matter was posted for arguments. ... Elaborate....
of trial, the subject document which is a xerox/photostat copy of alleged Deed of Co-ownership has been marked in the cross examination of Defendant No.2 by confronting the same under Order VII Rule 14(4) of the Code ... City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having overruled petitioners objection has marked a xerox/photostat copy of Deed of Co- owne....
The plan which is photo copy was confronted to PW-1 during the cross examination, the witness had admitted the said document. ... The said prayer was refused on the ground that the Court had declined the prayer of the petitioner during the cross examination of PW-1 on the ground that photo copies of the document cannot be marked. ... copy of plan to be marked#....
b. the respondent Police shall file a memo along with the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur assigning the reasons as to why the GD extract sought for from Tiruvallur Town Police station cannot be produced. The Court shall verify the copy with the original and hand over the original to PW1 and furnish a copy to the petitioner. The copy can be marked as an exhibit in the course of cross-examination of PW1; The same shall be taken on file by the Court below....
I hold that Ex-A5 has not been proved in the manner known to law and in the absence of credible evidence to explain why the original has not been produced or a certified copy was not been produced. Explanation has not been given, as to why the original was not produced or atleast why the certified copy was not produced. During the cross examination of DW-1, the Xerox copy was produced.
The prosecution has also got marked M.O. Nos. 1 to 12. Thereafter the statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against them, which they denied. During the course of cross-examination, accused got marked Exs.
During the course of cross-examination, accused got marked Exs. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against them.
Even though it is a xerox copy of the document, again Ex.D1 was never challenged as to its genuineness during the cross examination. Ex.D1 is the xerox copy of a letter written by the Plaintiff dated 13.11.2004 to M/s.Gemini Colour Laboratory, stating that the producer, namely, S.V.Thangaraj had settled all the dues with respect to the film MEESAI MADHAVAN.
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
