IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.526 of 2006 UMAKANT PRASAD NIRALA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 4.8.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Cr. Revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali in Cri. Revision No. 228 of 2005 thereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of lower court refusing to exhibit the photo copy of ‘Mahadanama’ as a secondary evidence. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that actually the original ‘Mahadanama’ is in possession of the informant and its photocopy of ‘Mahadanama’ is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, it should not be exhibited. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has practically directed the lower Court to exhibit the photocopy of ‘Mahadanama’ without compliance of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The operative portion of the impugned order would go to show that the matter has been remitted back to the Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the petition of the prosecution to mark the photocopy of ‘Mahadanama’ as exhibit. In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 passed by learned - 2 - Sessions Judge, Vaishali in Cri. Revision No. 228 of 2005. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Court below i.e. trial court shall only take the photocopy of ‘Mahadanam’ in question as secondary evidence after compliance of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)