UMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th June, 2014 whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "Act of 1872") was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that an FIR was lodged at the instance of manager of the bank regarding alleged fraudulent act in regard to cheque. The prosecution sought time to produce the original cheque and the matter was dragged almost for ten years. The bank did not produce the cheque despite opportunities, thus prosecution filed application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 to lead secondary evidence. The application aforesaid was accepted in ignorance of the fact that none of the grounds set out under Section 65(c) of the Act of 1872 is made out. In view of the above, the application should have been dismissed by the Court below.

(3.) The arguments are supported by the judgment in the case of Murlidhar Yadav & Ors. v. Smt. Dipti Singh & Ors., 2006 3 RajLW 2362. Therein, the petitioners were provided opportunity to satisfy the Court by leading evidence to prove that photocopy of agreement is genuine agreement but they failed to prove the same. In the background aforesaid, photocopy of agreement was not allowed to be considered