THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No..2878 of 2009 in C.C.No.523 of 2008 whereby the petition under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act by the 2nd respondent herein to lead secondary evidence by marking Photostat copies of certain documents was allowed. 2 Brief facts are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court and numbered the same as C.C.No.523 of 2008. When the said complaint was filed into court, the previous counsel for the 2nd respondent filed all the original documents into court, but, however, after verification he took back those documents and undertook to produce the same at the time of trial. It is the case of the petitioner that now he intends to change his counsel and as such he issued a notice to his previous counsel to return the documents to him. But as the said documents were misplaced, and as the originals of the said documents could not be produced before the court, he filed the present petition to permit him to mark the Photostat copies made from the original documents by mechanical process in the secondary evidence. The petitioner opposed the said petition by stating that the petitioner having undertaken to produce the originals at the time of trial failed to produce the same and as such no lenience can be shown for his negligence. The trial court having heard both sides allowed the said application and permitted the 2nd respondent herein to mark the Photostat copies of the documents. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this revision. 3 Heard. 4 As seen from the record it is to be observed that at the time of filing of the complaint the 2nd respondent filed all the original documents into the court along with the said complaint as per the annexure ‘list of documents’ and after verification of the same, the counsel for the 2nd respondent by endorsing on the complaint to produce the same at the time of trial took back those documents. The Photostat copies of the said originals were pressed into service. Now it is the case of the 2nd respondent that he intends to change his counsel and as such he issued notice to his previous counsel to return all the original documents to him but the same were not returned to him inspite of his request as they were misplaced. To establish his bona fides he got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.6 i.e. the postal correspondence between him and his previous counsel. 5 Admittedly the Photostat copies of the original documents were placed on record along with the complaint, which bears the stamp and initial of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court below and they were also furnished to the petitioner herein as provided for under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Further, Section 63 of the Evidence Act, which deals with secondary evidence reads as under: Sec. 63 – Secondary evidence: Secondary Evidence means and includes- 1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained, 2. Copies made from the original by mechanical process 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. 6 From the above proposition of law, it can safely be held that inasmuch as the Photostat copies of the said documents were already made on record and were compared with the originals by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court below, they can be marked and can be admitted in evidence. 7 In fact, the trial court has gone into all these aspects in right perspective and hence I see no merits in this revision and the order impugned does not suffer from any legal infirmities. 8 This revision is accordingly dismissed. ---------------- Kvsn 29.03.2011