Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

anil (bdm)     14 July 2010

IS Xerox a valid proof

I had purchased 3 plots(600 sq yards)  in my place through a broker.The broker had given me the documents signed from a third pary after taking the receipts back from me.The receipts were given and signed by the broker after taking the money from me before the documents were given to me.I had taken the xerox of the receipts before giving it back to the land broker.later  i found that the boundaries mentioned in the documents are completely different from the layout boundaries.He cheated me and he is not showing the correct location of the plots that i purchased.Finally my question is.Is it sufficient to produce the xerox copy of the receipts given by the land broker to file a  cheating case against this broker.Wil the xerox copy become a valid proof to be submitted in the court.please help me out


 7 Replies

A V Vishal (Advocate)     14 July 2010

Under S  63. of the Evidence Act, Secondary evidence means and includes.

1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies;

3. Copies made from or compared with the original;

4. Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.


(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 copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence, but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.

(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photo graph or machine copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.

A V Vishal (Advocate)     14 July 2010

Similarly u/s  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) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it;

(b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

(d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

(e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74;

(f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

(g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collections.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.

In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

G. ARAVINTHAN (Legal Consultant / Solicitor)     14 July 2010

it is valid in the absence of the originals

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     15 July 2010

I concur with both members.

Shreyas Zinjarde (Advocate/Consultant)     15 July 2010

I agree with the discussions as made and put forth by Mr. A.V.Vishal. Infact he has left no stone unturned.  

CS Pooja (Company Secretary)     16 July 2010

Thank you Vishal Sir, for refreshing Evidence Act in our minds.

But, as a matter of fact, I wanted to share one doubt with the learnt members.

In a recent case, print outs ( copy of print screen) of a site were used to prove a fact.

The Advocate was able to pursue upon the same pages and the judge too gave his judgement, based upon the facts proved.

Let me remind, the pages were not submitted in the Court, but the fact proved.

Now, the question is-  were those pages an evidence? ( i mean is it Section 63)

Why or why not?

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     17 July 2010

When everything is discretionary, what is the problem?

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Recent Topics

View More

Related Threads

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query