Xerox of Cheque Admissible as Secondary Evidence if Original Lost After Court's Verification: Madras High Court | S.65(c) Indian Evidence Act - 2025-09-23

Lost Original Cheque No Bar to NI Act Case if Court Verified it Earlier, Rules Madras HC

MADURAI: The Madras High Court has ruled that a photocopy of a cheque can be admitted as secondary evidence in a cheque bounce case if the original was lost after being produced and verified by the trial court. Setting aside a lower court's order, Justice Shamim Ahmed emphasized that once a court has verified an original document and retained a copy, the subsequent loss of the original should not prejudice the complainant's case.

The ruling came in a criminal revision case filed by Mohammed Iqbal, challenging the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai's refusal to accept a xerox copy of a cheque in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mohammed Iqbal, had initiated proceedings against S. Manonmanian in 2016 over a bounced cheque for Rs. 5,50,000. According to Iqbal, the original cheque was presented to the trial court when his sworn statement was recorded on July 15, 2014. The court verified the original, retained a photocopy for its records, and returned the original to Iqbal, making an endorsement to this effect.

Subsequently, the original cheque was misplaced and lost by Iqbal's former advocate. When the case proceeded to trial, Iqbal filed a petition to have the court-verified xerox copy admitted as secondary evidence. However, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed this petition on April 15, 2025, on the grounds that Iqbal had not provided sufficient proof of the cheque being lost by his lawyer.

Arguments in the High Court

Petitioner's Stance: Mr. A. Balaji, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the trial court's dismissal was flawed. He contended that since the trial court had already seen, verified, and made an endorsement regarding the original cheque, the authenticity of the xerox copy on record was established. He invoked Sections 63(2) and 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, which permit secondary evidence when an original document is lost. He stressed that denying this would cause a "great miscarriage of justice" and significant financial loss to his client.

Respondent's Stance: Ms. S. Prabha, representing the respondent, supported the trial court's order. She argued that there was no concrete evidence proving the loss of the original cheque and that admitting a photocopy without comparing it with the original would prejudice the respondent.

High Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Shamim Ahmed meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court focused on the conditions under which secondary evidence is admissible.

• Section 63: Defines secondary evidence to include copies made from the original by mechanical processes that ensure accuracy (like a xerox).
• Section 65(c): Explicitly allows secondary evidence to be presented when the original document has been "destroyed or lost."

The court found a crucial fact in the trial court's own order: a finding that the original cheque was indeed presented, verified, and returned to the petitioner. Justice Ahmed observed, "...the Trial Court itself received the original cheque, verified the same and returned to the Petitioner... Thus, it can be held that the Trial Court, only after due enquiry, satisfaction and comparison, it had returned the original cheque..."

This verification by the court satisfied the conditions under Section 63(2) and 63(3) of the Act. The subsequent loss of the document squarely brought the matter under the purview of Section 65(c).

The Verdict

The High Court concluded that the trial court's insistence on further proof of loss, despite its own earlier verification of the original, was unjustifiable. Justice Ahmed stated that the lower court "ought to have received the xerox copy of the original cheque as a secondary evidence... but, it failed to do so, resulting in great miscarriage of justice."

Allowing the criminal revision case, the High Court set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order. It directed the trial court to accept the xerox copy of the cheque as secondary evidence and to expedite the trial, concluding it as expeditiously as possible.