IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26487 of 2008 Date of decision: 11th February, 2009 Vandana Bansal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court today. Same is taken on record. Present petition has been filed aggrieved against the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana where he has declined the prayer of the complainant to lead secondary evidence to prove telegrams dated 30th September, 1996; 12th October, 1996; 23rd December, 1996; 1st January, 1997 and 17th January, 1997. The Court had taken notice that certified copies of the telegrams are in possession of Investigating Officer. In the reply submitted to this Court, it has been stated that certified copies of the telegrams are in police file. Sub para (a) of para 6 of the reply reads as under: Criminal Misc. No. M-26487 of 2008 “6. a] The contents of sub-para so far as Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, are admitted but it is wrong that the telegram and letters in question were addressed to the answering respondent. It is also wrong and denied that in a normal course they are to be possession of the answering respondent. It is also wrong and denied that two mechanical copies of the same were with the I.O. It is submitted that no photocopy of documents can be taken on the record nor the same is admissible in evidence. It is well settled proposition of law that no photocopy of any document can be treated as secondary evidence when the existence, loss and the contents of the documents have not been proved. Even otherwise Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in this case. So, no such application would lie as has been moved by the petitioner in this case. It is again submitted that application for secondary evidence has only been filed in order to delay the trial and hang a sword on the head of the answering respondents continuously.” In view of the averments made above, Investigating Officer is directed to produce the telegrams in the Court so that adequate opportunity is provided to the petitioner to prove these telegrams. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 11, 2009 rps