Secondary evidence and corrupt practice rules: photostat copies need a proper foundation, and falsity must be proved under election law.

Secondary evidence by photostat copy is admissible only on a legally sufficient foundation showing the original is unavailable in the manner recognised by law; on the stated facts, the lack of affidavit or other material proving possession of the original and explaining the copy justified refusal to admit it. A leaflet also amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) only if it contains a false statement of fact about a candidate's personal character or conduct, is believed false or not believed true, and is reasonably calculated to prejudice the election. As falsity was not proved and the candidate was not examined, the statutory ingredients were not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sufficient foundation was laid for leading secondary evidence of the manuscript by photostat copy under the Indian Evidence Act, and whether publication of the leaflet constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue: Whether a sufficient foundation was laid for leading secondary evidence of the manuscript by photostat copy under the Indian Evidence Act.

Analysis: Secondary evidence is admissible only when the conditions for its reception are satisfied, including a proper basis showing that the original is within the possession or power of the opposite party or otherwise unavailable in the manner recognised by law. The appellant failed to show by affidavit or other material that the original manuscript was in the respondent's possession, failed to explain the circumstances in which the photostat copy was prepared, and failed to establish who held the original at the relevant time. In these circumstances the High Court was justified in declining to admit the photostat copy as secondary evidence.

Conclusion: No sufficient foundation was laid for secondary evidence, and the refusal to admit the photostat copy was correct.

Issue: Whether publication of the leaflet constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: A corrupt practice under Section 123(4) requires publication of a statement of fact relating to a candidate's personal character or conduct which is false and is believed to be false or not believed to be true, and which is reasonably calculated to prejudice the election prospects of that candidate. The record contained no evidence proving the falsity of the statements in the leaflet, and the candidate concerned was not examined. In the absence of proof of falsity, the essential ingredient of the statutory corrupt practice was missing, and the refusal to remand the matter for further evidence was justified.

Conclusion: No corrupt practice under Section 123(4) was proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the evidentiary foundation for secondary evidence was absent and the statutory ingredients of corrupt practice were not established.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary evidence cannot be admitted without a legally sufficient foundation, and publication of statements concerning a candidate's personal character or conduct does not amount to corrupt practice unless their falsity is proved and the remaining statutory ingredients are established.

---