HARICHARANLAL POORANLAL Vs. KRISHI UPAZ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the note/order of the court below which is recorded during examination-in-chief of a witness of plaintiff namely Ravindra Singh Kushwaha. In the course of recording evidence of the said witness photocopy of document dated 12.3.2010 was produced by the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant took an objection that it is not a carbon copy but is a photocopy which is inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff, in turn, stated that said photocopy is compared with original by the Secretary of the Organisation and after such compare the Secretary has put his signature and seal. The court below considered the said objection and heard the rival contentions of the parties and then gave an opinion that as per the statement of plaintiff's counsel, the photocopy was compared by the Secretary and it contains his seal and signature and, therefore, this photocopy is admissible. Thus, the singular question is whether in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, said photocopy is admissible in evidence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner by relying on certain judgments submits that it is inadmissible in law, whereas Shri S.P.Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent supported this and relied on 2002

(3.) THE secondary evidence is defined under section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. A photocopy obtained through a mechanical process is admissible in evidence provided certain conditions are fulfilled. One of the said conditions is that it should be compared with the original. In the considered opinion of this Court, such comparison has to be by the court and not by somebody behind the back of the parties and outside the court. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged comparing of the document was done by the Secretary. Thus, it cannot be said that the conditions of section 63 of the Evidence Act are fulfilled. The said document is, therefore, inadmissible in law. This view is taken by this Court in 2012 (1) MPLJ 120 (Ratanlal vs. Kishanlal) and AIR 1998 MP 46 (Ramesh Verma vs. Smt. Lajesh Saxena). The judgment cited by Shri S.P.Jain does not support his case at all. Thus, the minimum statutory requirement for admissibility of a photocopy is not fulfilled by the plaintiff. The court below has erred in allowing the said document as secondary evidence.