The photocopy of the alleged ration card could be proved and would be admissible only in absence of primary evidence. If the original evidence is not produced on account of failure of the party to file the same and it is not proved to be valid the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents. In Smt. J. Yashoda (supra), the Supreme Court had held that secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or the other of the conditions provided for in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. This is not the case of the prosecution that the original record of the ration department of the year 1992 has been destroyed nor any other ground has been made out for production of this secondary evidence. The argument advanced by the Learned Public Prosecutor that the photocopy is admissible under section 65 (c) of the Evidence Act is reflective of non comprehension of the said provision and ignorance of the record of the Ration Department. Primary evidence regarding the ration card is the record of the Ration Department on the basis of which the Ration Card is issued. Being a certified copy of record of the department, ration card is admissible under section 74 of the Evidence Act. However to prove the photocopy of the ration card, the record from the ration department should have been summoned. No effort was even made to call any official of the ration department regarding the alleged ration card. Perusal of the alleged photocopy also reveals that it does not bear a printed ration card number. Though, the registration number is given however, the printed/endorsed number is missing as also the photograph of the head of the family. In Arti Bhargava (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the genuineness of the photocopies cannot be guaranteed unless there is evidence that someone had compared the photocopies with the original or had obtained the photocopies from the original. In The United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), it was held that production of photocopy of driving license was not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid license and its genuineness was not admitted.
Print Page
Delhi High Court
Shakuntala vs State on 25 March, 2011
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMARHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA
