bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 850 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 850 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 850 OF 2008 Laxmi Engineering & Fabricators ... Petitioner v/s Unity Aluminium & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A. Shastry for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the J.M.F.C.(A.C.) Link Road, Pune allowing the complainant - respondent No.1 to lead secondary evidence in respect of the cheque which was allegedly dishonoured. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the original cheque was never brought to the Court and, therefore, there is no endorsement made by the office of the Court on the photo copy of the cheque which was filed alongwith the complaint. It is submitted that the secondary evidence of the cheque would not indicate whether different inks were used on the cheque or whether there was any interpolations etc. and, therefore, such secondary evidence would be of no use. 2 2. In my view, the submissions cannot be accepted. The photo-copy of the cheque has been produced and secondary evidence is sought to be led on the basis of that photo-copy in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The evidentiary value of the secondary evidence which may be led relating to the cheque is an aspect that trial Court will assess when it passes the final order. It would not be necessary for this Court to preempt the trial Court from passing appropriate orders at the trial. 4. Writ petition rejected.