Writ maintainability and secondary evidence: photocopies need strict foundational proof before admission under evidence law.

A writ petition challenging a revisional order was held maintainable within the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, even though the criminal procedure framework provides limited revisional and inherent remedies. On secondary evidence, a photocopy was found inadmissible because the statutory conditions were not strictly proved: there was no adequate foundation showing how the copy was prepared, that it was compared with the original, or that the original was lost or otherwise unavailable despite due diligence. The challenge to refusal of secondary evidence therefore failed and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the revisional order was maintainable; (ii) Whether a photocopy of the document could be received as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the revisional order was maintainable.

Analysis: The question of maintainability was considered in the light of the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction and the limited revisional and inherent remedies under the criminal procedure framework. Reliance was placed on the principle that the Cr.P.C. is a complete code, yet constitutional jurisdiction may still be invoked in extraordinary cases. On that basis, the writ petition was held to be maintainable against the revisional order.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether a photocopy of the document could be received as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act.

Analysis: Secondary evidence is admissible only when the statutory conditions are satisfied and a proper foundation is laid for non-production of the original. The provisions governing secondary evidence require proof of the existence, execution, loss or unavailability of the original, and satisfactory material showing that the copy relied upon is accurate and trustworthy. On the facts, there was no adequate averment or material showing how the photocopy was prepared, that it was compared with the original, or that the original had been lost despite due diligence. A mere photocopy, without such foundation, was held insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders refusing secondary evidence failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Photocopies are not admissible as secondary evidence unless the statutory conditions are strictly established and a reliable foundation is laid for loss or non-production of the original document.

---