High Court rules photo copies inadmissible as secondary evidence.

J YASHODA Versus K. SHOBHA RANI

J YASHODA Versus K. SHOBHA RANI - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 458 (SC) , 2007 AIR 1721, 2007 (5) SCR 367, 2007 (5) SCC 730, 2007 (6) JT 64, 2007 (6) SCALE 6 Issues:
Challenge to judgment allowing civil revision petition based on the admissibility of documents as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a judgment allowing a civil revision petition regarding the admissibility of documents marked as secondary evidence. The High Court held that photo copies cannot be received as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Act, which requires certified copies or specific documents for admissibility. Since the documents were photo copies, they could not be compared with the originals, leading to the revision being allowed.

2. The appellant argued that the High Court ignored the mandatory requirements of Section 63 and 65(a) of the Act, emphasizing the need for proper evidence under these sections. Conversely, the respondent supported the High Court's decision, stating that the requirements of Section 65(a) were not met in the case.

3. The court examined Sections 63 and 65(a) to determine the admissibility of secondary evidence. It clarified that secondary evidence is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence and must fulfill the conditions set out in the Act. The best evidence rule mandates the production of superior evidence when available, as outlined in Section 65 for proving document contents.

4. Secondary evidence is permissible when primary evidence is unavailable, subject to meeting the conditions specified in Section 65. The case law highlighted the importance of fulfilling the requirements for admitting secondary evidence, such as accounting for the non-production of the original document.

5. In the present case, the original document was with a specific individual, and the conditions of Section 65(a) were not met for admitting secondary evidence. As a result, the High Court's decision was upheld as there was no justification for interference. The appeal was dismissed without costs.