TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds use of secondary evidence in cheque case, dismisses challenge under Section 138</h1> <h3>Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. and Ors. Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.</h3> Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. and Ors. Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - TMI Issues:Petition to quash order allowing secondary evidence of a photostat copy of a cheque in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:1. The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sought to mark a photostat copy of a lost original cheque as secondary evidence. The trial court allowed this, leading to the petitioners seeking to quash this order.2. The petitioners argued that the complainant failed to establish the loss of the original cheque and the authenticity of the photostat copy, emphasizing the need for primary evidence under the best evidence rule.3. The respondents contended that the original cheque was lost, and the photostat copy in court records was a valid replacement for the lost original. They argued that the courts rightly permitted the use of secondary evidence.4. The main issue was whether the complainant satisfactorily established the loss of the original cheque and the authenticity of the photostat copy to warrant the use of secondary evidence.5. The court referred to Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, which allows secondary evidence when the original is lost. The Apex Court's decision in a similar case emphasized the need to prove the loss of the original document for admissibility of secondary evidence.6. The court found that the complainant had likely filed the original cheque in court, and the photostat copy was a valid replacement based on court procedures. The loss of the cheque was accepted as true, allowing for the use of secondary evidence.7. The petitioners' concern about the tamperability of the photostat copy and the inability to send it for forensic examination was dismissed, as the burden of proof lay with the complainant, and the accused had other legal avenues for defense.8. The court distinguished cited cases that did not align with the current situation and concluded that there were no merits in the petition to quash the order allowing secondary evidence.9. The Criminal Petition was dismissed, and any related pending petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
TaxTMI 