Secondary evidence of postal records allowed when originals are unavailable despite reasonable efforts and a factual foundation is shown.

Secondary evidence of a postal receipt and returned envelope may be permitted where the originals are shown to be unavailable despite reasonable effort and a proper factual foundation is laid under the Evidence Act. In this Section 138 NI Act complaint, the documents had been filed and later returned after comparison, and the complainant explained that the originals were misplaced in counsel's office. The HC found no perversity or illegality in allowing secondary evidence because the documents were material to proving issuance and service of notice, and denial would have prejudiced the prosecution. The petitioners were left free to challenge custody, existence, and execution through cross-examination and defence evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court was justified in permitting the complainant to adduce secondary evidence of the postal receipt and returned envelope under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required proof of issuance and service of demand notice. The record indicated that the relevant documents had been filed with the complaint and later returned after comparison, and the complainant asserted that the original postal receipt and envelope were misplaced in counsel's office. The Court applied the settled principle that secondary evidence is admissible when the original is lost or unavailable despite reasonable efforts, and that the party seeking such evidence must lay a factual foundation for its admission. The Court also noted that the documents were material to the complainant's case and that refusal of permission would seriously prejudice the prosecution, while the petitioners retained the right to challenge custody, existence, and execution of the documents through cross-examination and defence evidence.

Conclusion: The revisional court was in granting permission to lead secondary evidence, and no perversity, illegality, or irregularity was found in that order.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order permitting secondary evidence failed, and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary evidence may be permitted when the original document is shown to be unavailable despite reasonable effort, the party lays the necessary factual foundation, and denial of such opportunity would unjustly impair adjudication on the merits.

---