Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Salvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686
-1-
MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025,
56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56819 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56821 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56827 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56830 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56831 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 1/20/2026
10:57:21 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686
-2-
MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025,
56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56833 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SALVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aniruddha Gokhale- Advocate for the petitioner/Rajkumar Salvi.
Shri Aditya Garg- Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1] This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos. 56819/2025, 56821/2025, 56827/2025,56830/2025,56831/2025 and 56833/2025 regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved. 2] All these petitions have been filed by the petitioner/Raj Kumar Salvi under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the orders dated 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 30/10/2025, 29/10/2025 respectivly, passed by the learned Court of XXII of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore District Indore in S.T.No.547/2024, S.T.No.668/2024, S.T.No.578/2024, S.T.No.577/2024, S.T.No.576/2024, S.T.No.579/2024, respectively; whereby, the applications filed in each case by the prosecution under Section 63 of the Evidence Act of 1872 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act of 1872"), for leading the secondary evidence, has been allowed. 3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -3- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 aforesaid trial in connection with Crime Nos.134/2024- (S.T.No.547/2024), Crime No.147/2024-(S.T.No.576/2024), Crime No.148/2024- (S.T.No.579/2024), CrimeNo.149/2024 (S.T.No.478/2024), Crime No.156/2024 (S.T.No.577/2024), Crime No.171/2024 (S.T.No.621/2024) & Crime No.190/2024 (S.T.No.668/2024) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 409, 120-B, 34 of IPC at Police Station M.G. Road, District Indore.
4] Admittedly, the aforesaid trial is at the stage of recording of the evidence, and on 31/7/2025, the prosecution filed an application under Section 63 of the Act of 1872, with a prayer that the photocopies of the documents mentioned under para 3 of the application may be taken on record as secondary evidence, on the ground, that the original documents have been lost from the possession of Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC), and despite best efforts to retrieve the same, the documents could not be found. The prayer was opposed by the petitioner, however, the learned judge has allowed the same vide its orders dated 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 30/10/2025 and 29/10/2025 respectively which are under challenge before this Court. 5] Shri Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned judge of the trial Court has allowed the photocopies of the documents which have already been lost, to be received in evidence which would seriously prejudice the case of the petitioner as the prosecution has not filed the application narrating all Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -4- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 the relevant factors for accepting the photocopies of the documents as secondary evidence.
6] Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that for filing an application u/s.63 of the Act of 1872 the two requisite conditions are; (i) that the photocopies were made from mechanical process (ii) the copies were compared with the original, but both these conditions have not been complied with, in such circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
7] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. Deepchand and others passed in M.P.No.1971/2022 order dated 6/9/2023 where the original documents were lost and an application was filed for producing the photocopies of the same in evidence, and this Court held that such documents cannot be taken into account as secondary evidence unless the conditions enumerated under section 63(2) of the Act of 1872 are fulfilled. Thus, it is submitted that the petitions may be allowed, and the aforesaid impugned orders be set aside.
8] Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the huge amount involved, which runs into Crores of rupees, no case for interference is made out. However, it could not be denied that the ingredients of section 63(2) of the Act of 1872 are missing from the applications filed before the trial court.
9] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, and on Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -5- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 perusal of the applications filed by the prosecution u/s.63 of the Act of 1872, it is found that the details of various documents (photocopies of the original/relevant documents) on which the prosecution seeks to rely on have been given, and it is prayed in the applications that the documents may be admitted as secondary evidence. This Court is of the considered opinion that such an application filed either by the prosecution or the defence cannot be allowed only on its asking, as the learned judge of the trial Court is required to test the application on anvil of Section 63(2) of the Act of 1872.
10] This Court in the case of Narendra Kumar (Supra), in para 8 and 9 has held that:-
"8. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the admissibility of a photocopy as a secondary evidence is concerned, reference may be had to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Dushyant Sharma (supra), the Relevant paragraphs 6, 7, 15 and 16 read as under :-
(6) Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it is apt to quote the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 63(2) reads as under:
"63. Secondary evidence.-- Secondary evidence means and includes--
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies."
Section 63(a) and (b) (Illustrations) reads as under:
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -6- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original"
Section 65(c) reads as under:
65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.-- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:
(a) XXX XXX XXX
(b) XXX XXX XXX (7) The arguments of learned counsel for the parties are based on these provisions. Section 63(2) aforesaid makes it obligatory that the copies which are made from the original by mechanical process are required to be compared with such copies. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that two conditions are required to be fulfilled for applying Section 63(2) viz, (i) the copies are made from the original by mechanical process (ii) copies are compared with original copies.
Section 63(Illustration)(a) has no application, in my opinion, in the present matter because the said illustration deals with photographs. Illustration (b) talks about comparing a letter with the original. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 63(2) with Section 63(Illustration)(c) makes it clear that aforesaid two conditions are necessary to bring a document within the ambit of "secondary evidence".
Section 65(c) is an enabling provision where the original document is lost or destroyed and it is shown that the said event of loss or destroy of the document is not arising out of any default or neglect of the party concerned, the document can be taken as secondary evidence.
(15) On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the court below has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The necessary ingredients for treating the documents in question as secondary evidence were not available and application preferred under Section 65 of Evidence Act does not contain necessary averments and declaration on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -7- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 strength of which the documents could have been treated as secondary evidence.
(16) The last submission of Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the definition of "proved" is of no help to him at this stage. The question of treating a document or giving a finding about "proved" would arise provided the documents in question are taken into the evidence. At this stage, this argument is premature.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. On perusal of the aforesaid decision clearly reveals that when it comes to copying the original documents, the copies must be made by original from mechanical process, and copies are compared with original and cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents must be given which also reveals that original has been destroyed or lost or cannot be produced in the reasonable time. Thus, before a document can be produced in the Court, first of all it is required to be shown that the copies are made from mechanical process, and also that they are compared with the original. Thus, this requirement is sine qua non for a document to be produced in secondary evidence, and merely pleading that the original document is lost would not suffice."
11] It is apparent that the case at hand would be squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) as admittedly in the application filed under Section 63 of the Act of 1872, none of the ingredients of section 63 of the Act of 1872 have been pleaded and simply the application has been filed with all the details of the documents to be accepted as the secondary evidence, which, in the considered opinion of this Court could not have been allowed by the trial Court, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 29/10/2025, 31/10/2025, 30/10/2025, Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1686 -8- MCRC.NOs. 56819/2025,56821/2025,56827/2025, 56830/2025,56831/2025, 56833/2025 29/10/2025 cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby set-aside.
12] However, with liberty reserved to the respondent to file a fresh application with all the averments as required under Section 63(2) of the Act of 1872 as observed by this Court as aforesaid, and if, such an application is filed, the same shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.
13] With the aforesaid observation, all the MCRCs are allowed and disposed of.
14] Let a copy of this order be also placed in the record of all the aforesaid connected petitions.
15] All the pending IA stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 1/20/2026 10:57:21 AM