Secondary evidence of a cheque allowed where loss of the original was satisfactorily explained and admissibility did not prove contents.

Secondary evidence of a cheque may be admitted under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act only when the party lays a factual foundation showing that the original was filed, the copy produced is an exact copy, and the original is lost or otherwise unavailable for reasons not attributable to the party's default. On the facts, those requirements were treated as satisfied, and the absence of the counsel's supporting affidavit did not defeat the request. Admission of the photostat copy did not amount to proof of its contents, so the defence was not prejudiced merely by marking the document. The challenge to permission for secondary evidence was rejected, and the complainant remained entitled to prove the cheque in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to adduce secondary evidence of the cheque by producing its photostat copy on the ground that the original cheque had been filed in court, taken back by counsel and subsequently lost, and whether the order permitting such evidence deserved interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits secondary evidence when the original document has been destroyed or lost, or cannot be produced for reasons not attributable to the party's default or neglect. A party seeking such permission must lay a factual foundation showing that the original was in fact filed, that the copy sought to be used is the correct copy of the original, and that the non-production of the original is satisfactorily accounted for. On the facts, the filing of the original cheque in court was treated as established, the photostat copy available in the court record was treated as an exact copy, and the loss of the original was accepted as sufficiently explained. Mere absence of the counsel's supporting affidavit did not, in the circumstances, displace the request for secondary evidence. The apprehension that marking the copy would prejudice the defence or deprive the accused of all means to contest the document was rejected, since admissibility does not amount to proof and the complainant still had to prove the document in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The complainant was rightly permitted to lead secondary evidence, and the petition seeking quashing of that permission failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders of the courts below was rejected and the criminal petition stood dismissed, leaving the complainant free to prove the cheque in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary evidence is admissible only when the party establishes a factual foundation showing loss or non-production of the original for reasons not attributable to the party's own default, and admission of such evidence does not by itself prove its contents.

---