Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus it may be said that before being admitted as secondary evidence being copies prepared by mechanical process, the authenticity of the Photostat document has to be established where photostat copy of a document is produced and there is no proof of its accuracy or of its having been compared with or its being true reproduction of the original, it cannot be considered as secondary evidence. In other words, photostat copy of a document is not admissible as secondary evidence unless proved to be genuine or is admitted by opposite party. Clause (2) of section 63 has two requirements first - the copies should be prepared from a mechanical process and second - the process should be such which in itself ensures accuracy of copy. While every Photostat copy is prepared by mechanical process however, it may or may not be accurate, therefore its admissibility as secondary evidence in view of clause (2) of Section 63 of the Act is subject to proof of the fact that it was a correct copy of original document. Similar observations have been made by this Court in Prem Lata v. Dwarka Prasad and Ors. CR No. 4913 decided on 23.08.2013 and Rajasthan Golden Transport Company v. LRs of Amrit Lal, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 95. Therefore, even when the permission to produce photostat copy of a document as secondary evidence is granted, it is open for the parties to argue about the probative value attached to it. When it is shown that photostat copy by itself is a suspicious document, it cannot be relied upon. Following observations of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanchan Malhotra v. Yashvir Singh 1986(1) HLR 387 are relevant in this regard:

Since the aforesaid requirements were not met in that case, it was held that Photostat copy itself being suspicious document, no probative value could be attached to it.

The proposition of law laid down in aforesaid judgments provides answers to the questions raised above. Thus a Photostat copy of a document can be produced in evidence only when it is alleged and proved that the original was in existence and is lost or destroyed or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it or in any other circumstances mentioned in section 65 of the Act. These foundational facts, however, are to be proved by leading cogent evidence. As regards the question whether photostat copy of a document comes within the meaning & definition of 'secondary evidence' as contained in section 63 of the Act, there cannot be absolute answer because every photostat copy may not be accurate. For this purpose the probative value of the Photostat copy has to be proved independently.

e) Allowing production of Photostat copy in evidence does not amount to its proof. Its probative value has to be proved and assessed independently. It has to be shown that it was made from original at particular place and time.

f) In cases where the Photostat copy is itself suspicious it should not be relied upon. Unless the court is satisfied that the Photostat copy is genuine and accurate it should not be read in evidence.

g) The accuracy of photostat copy shall be established on oath to the satisfaction of court by the person who prepared such copy or who can speak of its accuracy.

The abovesaid principles must be followed by the courts while admitting a photostat copy as secondary evidence and assessing its probative value.