original or secondary as provided in Sections 64, 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. that whenever "document" is referred in an order or is required to be produced, it must satisfy the test of admissible documents viz. No reliance can be expected on a document which is otherwise inadmissible in a Court and. So, the photocopy to be admissible as evidence has to be a certified copy. It is only orally being claimed to be a photocopy without claiming that what was photographed was the original or that it was compared with the original.
In the absence of any material, it cannot be treated to be a secondary evidence. For secondary evidence, the testimony must indicate that the alleged photocopy was prepared from the original or that it was not prepared from a copy of the original, or that it was compared with (he original if prepared from a copy compared with the original. Now let us see whether it can come within the definition of secondary evidence. As such, it cannot be classified as document. Thus, the photocopy cannot be a primary evidence. Explanation 2 to Section 60 provides that copies of a common original are not primary evidence. According to Section 62 thereof primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Section 61 of the Evidence Act prescribes that the contents of a document may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence.
0 kommentar(er)
