Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of true copy of document – Is inadmissible when existence of Original document is disputed : Evidence Act, 1872, Section 63(2) & (3) & 65

In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor any factual foundation has been laid for giving secondary evidence, the secondary evidence relating to contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. Secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is, in fact, a true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidences does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon. Clause 2 of section 63 provides that secondary evidence means the copies made of their original by mechanical process, which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies, which can be termed as secondary evidence. Clause 3 of section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act covers the kind of document which the petitioner sought to produce as secondary evidence.
Illustration (a) refers to photograph of original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared but if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. Illustration (b) refers to copy compared with copy of a letter made from copying machine as secondary evidence of the contents of letter if it is shown that the copy made by copying machine was made from the original.
Illustration (c) covers a copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original as secondary evidence.

The Hon’ble Court observed that in the instant case, the original document is claimed to be relating to the year 1965, the era when the use of the photocopy machines and photocopier was not in vogue. Besides, it cannot be accepted as secondary evidence because the document, which sought to be produced, is not a photocopy of the original but is a photocopy of the true copy. This is not a true copy of the original, which may have been compared with its original by the attesting authority but is the document, which is claimed to be photocopy of the true copy of its original. Not only the existence of the original of this document is disputed but the attestation of the true copy also has not been ‘proved’. Therefore, the said photocopy of the true copy cannot be said to be admissible as secondary evidence.