Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Prem Lata vs Dwarka Parsad & Others on 23 August, 2013
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.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. J. Yashoda vs Smt. K. Shobha Rani on 19 April, 2007
In Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani 2007 (2) RCR
(Civil) 840, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of
admissibility of photocopy of a document, original whereof was in
possession of third party, came to a conclusion that since, the conditions
mentioned in Section 65 of the Act were not fulfilled, photostat copy
could not be allowed to be produced as secondary evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
U.Sree vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012
Recently in U. Sree v. U. Srinivas 2013 (1) RCR (Civil)
883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere denial by the party to
produce the original document in whose possession it is stated to be does
not lay down foundational facts for producing secondary evidence.