Secondary evidence.Secondary evidence means and includes
Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained11
Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies
Copies made from or compared with the original
Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them
Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations 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 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 photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. COMMENTS Admissibility Application moved for permission to lead secondary evidence based on ground of loss of document. Presence of document proved from the facts pleaded - Allowing secondary evidence not illegal Sobha Rani v. Ravikumar, AIR 1999 PH 21. Tape-recorded statements are admissible in evidence K.S. Mohan v. Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Mad 59. Certified copies of money lenders licences are admissible in evidence K. Shivalingaiah v. B.V. Chandrashekara Gowda, AIR 1993 Kant 29.
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.
A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a 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.
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.
Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. COMMENTS Admissibility Application moved for permission to lead secondary evidence based on ground of loss of document. Presence of document proved from the facts pleaded - Allowing secondary evidence not illegal Sobha Rani v. Ravikumar, AIR 1999 PH 21. Tape-recorded statements are admissible in evidence K.S. Mohan v. Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Mad 59. Certified copies of money lenders licences are admissible in evidence K. Shivalingaiah v. B.V. Chandrashekara Gowda, AIR 1993 Kant 29.