https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408970 The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to allow the respondent to use Photostat copies as secondary evidence under Section 65(C) of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on the precedent set in Krishnapatnam Port Co. Ltd., the court found that the respondent had provided a factual foundation for the misplacement of the original documents. The petitioners' arguments against the admissibility of Photostat copies were dismissed, and the petition was rejected under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408970 The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to allow the respondent to use Photostat copies as secondary evidence under Section 65(C) of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on the precedent set in Krishnapatnam Port Co. Ltd., the court found that the respondent had provided a factual foundation for the misplacement of the original documents. The petitioners' arguments against the admissibility of Photostat copies were dismissed, and the petition was rejected under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408970