Supreme Court: Xerox copy of Income tax return is not admissible in Evidence in Motor accident claim petition

The fact is that, the Appellant had produced only the xerox copies of the Income Tax Returns of her parents, pertaining to the financial years 2003 to 2007. Indisputably, the Tribunal as also the High Court did not take them as admissible evidence and make assessment on their basis. At the same time without placing reliance on the xerox copies of the Income Tax Returns, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of her father as Rs. 12,000/- and that of her mother as Rs. 8,000/-.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0014/2025.

Print Page

Bom HC: Document obtained under RTI can not be treated as public document if original is private document

Under RTI, usually the applicant gets photostat copies of the documents which are certified as true copies. They cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act. In other words, if the official under RTI certifies and supplies a private document, it still remains a private document. Thus, the RTI Act does not affect the nature of a document.

36. In Datti Kameswari, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified by the Authorised Information Officer cannot be termed public documents or primary evidence. Only if the original qualifies to be a public document, then does its certified copy. But if the original is a private document, its copy secured under RTI Act does not get transformed into a public document. In that event, that certified copy of the private document must satisfy the provisions of Evidence Act for secondary evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8764 of 2018

Decided On: 07.08.2019

 Kumarpal N. Shah Vs.  Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Print Page

Golden rules for proof of photocopy as secondary evidence

 In Surinder Kaur v. Mehal Singh and others MANU/PH/3614/2013 : 2014(1) R. C.R. (civil) 467 it has been held as under:-

"a) Photostat copy of a document can be allowed to be produced only in absence of original document.

b) When a party seeks to produce Photostat copy it has to lay the foundational facts by proving that original document existed and is lost or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it. Mere assertion of the party is not sufficient to prove these foundational facts.

c) The objections as to non existence of such circumstances or non existence of foundational facts must be taken at earliest by the opposite party after the photostat copy is tendered in evidence.

d) When the opposite party raises objection as to authenticity of the Photostat copy its authenticity has to be determined as every copy made from a mechanical process may not be accurate. Both the requirements of clause (2) of section 63 are to be satisfied.

e) Allowing production of Photostat copy in evidence does not amount to its proof. Its probative value has to be proved and assessed independently. It has to be shown that it was made from original at particular place and time.

f) In cases where the Photostat copy is itself suspicious it should not be relied upon. Unless the court is satisfied that the Photostat copy is genuine and accurate it should not be read in evidence.

g) The accuracy of photostat copy shall be established on oath to the satisfaction of court by the person who prepared such copy or who can speak of its accuracy."

18. In view of the above, it is a settled principle of law that mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with proof of its execution. Therefore, photostat copies of the documents are required to be proved in terms of their execution. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CR No. 5516 of 2007 (O&M)

Decided On: 14.03.2019

 Sham Gopal  Vs.  Ved Parkash and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jaishree Thakur, J.

Print Page

Whether court should allow exhibition of xerox copy of document if existence of original is not denied?

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff's application for direction to the defendants to produce the original was rejected by the trial Court and in the premises, the impugned orders for production of secondary evidence and marking of the xerox copy could not have been passed. The application for production of the original was rejected on the basis that the plaintiff had an option to follow the other provisions of the Evidence Act to prove the document. One of the provisions to be followed was Clause (a) of Section 65. The plaintiff, accordingly, applied for production of secondary evidence after issuing a notice under Section 66. The plaintiff has deposed in his oral evidence that the document has been in possession or power of defendant No. 1. The order of the Court allowing secondary evidence does not suffer from any infirmity on that account. After all, the existence of the document itself is not denied by the defendant at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of our Court in the case of Prakash Gurudas Timblo and Others vs. Hemlatabai Ravikant Darne and Others, reported in MANU/MH/1117/2016 : 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. 320 : [2016 (4) ALL MR 913], to claim that the Court must be first satisfied about the existence of the original before an order permitting secondary evidence of it is passed. The opinion to be formed by the Court, as observed in Prakash Gurudas Timblo, is merely a prima facie opinion. Whether the original actually exists is a matter of trial. At the stage of admission of evidence, it is sufficient for the Court to form a prima facie opinion that the original exists and that opinion the trial Court in the present case can certainly be said to have formed.

5. The document thus appearing to be in existence and in possession or power of defendant No. 1, in the light of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, permission to adduce secondary evidence could well be granted. No fault can be found with this order. The order permitting secondary evidence, besides, as observed above, does not prejudice the petitioner in questioning the very existence of the original or the efficacy of the secondary evidence to prove its execution. There is, thus, no merit in the challenge to the order dated 8th July, 2015 permitting secondary evidence. The order permitting xerox copy of the partition deed passed on 7th July, 2017 is merely consequential upon the order permitting secondary evidence of the document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5738 of 2017

Decided On: 07.09.2017

 Satish Vs. Pramod and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 711

Print Page

When it is not permissible to rely on xerox copy of document?

Exh. 38 as also Exh. 47 are secondary evidence. There is no evidence on record to show that original was not available. On the contrary, the trial Court has already recorded a finding that it is in possession of respondent. The lower appellate Court has not considered this aspect at all. On the strength of oral evidence of brother Kisan, the lower Appellate Court has found the contents of Exh. 47 to be more correct and therefore for this reason only it has refused to act upon Exh. 38. However, it has overlooked provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of Indian Evidence Act. Until and unless there was a leave sought to tender secondary evidence "and leave was granted, no Secondary evidence could have been looked into. Exh. 47 being secondary evidence, could not have been looked into at all by lower Appellate Court. The logic behind the arrangement as found by learned lower Appellate Court in Exh. 47 is already considered by me above. The arrangement allegedly made in favour of present respondent does not appear to be consistent with the earlier part of the document. However, it cannot be forgotten that Exh. 47 is only a xerox copy. Whether the alleged portion is an alteration or not also cannot be conclusively decided as original document has not come on record. It is a well known fact that in the process of preparing xerox copy, there can be several manipulations and hence it is unsafe to act upon said xerox copy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

S.A. No. 427 of 1992

Decided On: 14.03.2008

Ganpat Pandurang Ghongade Vs. Nivrutti Pandurang Ghongade

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation: 2008(3) ALLMR 629

Print Page

Whether xerox copy of documents is admissible as secondary evidence if original court record is destroyed?

It is pertinent to note that, by way of present application, besides the quashing of proceedings, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order granting permission to adduce secondary evidence in the matter. It is apparent from the record that, application vide Exh. 73 was filed on 09.11.2009. On 22.04.2010, the defence has recorded its say & opposed the application only on the ground that the application is made after a period of nine years and that too with intention to prolong the proceedings. In the application filed, the prosecution has set out in detail the circumstances under which the complainant is required to file the application for leave to lead secondary evidence. It is specifically mentioned in the application that the record was destroyed during the course of destruction of old record and proceedings of the Court though the proceeding was pending. The permission was sought in the matter to produce the xerox copies of the record available with the complaint as secondary evidence. The application was made in terms of Section 65 of the said Act. On hearing the parties, as the request was found strictly in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the ld. Magistrate has allowed the application by order dt. 26.04.2010 and permitted the complainant to adduce secondary evidence in the matter. The order passed by ld. Magistrate is perfectly legal and there is no scope for interference in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. After granting permission to lead secondary evidence, the evidence of complainant was recorded and the order framing charge was passed. Subsequently, in the month of August-2010, the present application is filed, which reflects the ulterior motive on the part of applicant to protract the proceedings before the trial Court.

Bombay High Court

Kailash S/O Mannalal Jindal vs The State Of Mah. At The Instance ... on 5 May, 2016

Bench: V.L. Achliya

Read full judgment here: click here 

Print Page

When mental illness of spouse can be proved by xerox medical records?

 The appellant is also seeking divorce on the ground of
mental illness of the respondent. In order to prove that the
respondent is suffering from mental illness, the appellant has
examined PW-2 Dr. Mazumdar. Dr. Mazumdar has stated in his
evidence that he is working as Psychiatrist in B.A.R.C. (Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre). The respondent is also working in
the said Research Centre. Dr. Mazumdar knew the respondent
as they were both working in one and same Institution. He has
stated that the respondent was taking treatment from him.
The respondent had come to his department with symptoms of
"paranoid schizophrenia". The Doctor has produced xerox

copies of medical papers of the respondent. It is pertinent to
note that the appellant has not produced the original medical
papers of the respondent. PW-2 Dr. Mazumdar has admitted
that the originals of medical papers of the respondent are with
B.A.R.C. however, they were not produced before the Court and
only xerox copies of the medical papers were produced. Thus,
the medical papers have not been proved according to law. It
is well settled that the burden of proving a fact lies heavily
upon the person who makes the allegations. The appellant has
not complied with the legal requirements to prove the
contents of the xerox copies. Therefore, the medical papers
(Exh. 28) cannot be read in evidence against the respondent.
Admittedly, the medical papers produced by PW-2 Dr.
Mazumdar are not primary evidence but those are secondary
evidence. Admittedly, the appellant has not taken permission
from the Court before leading such secondary evidence. The
appellant was required to comply with Section 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act before leading secondary evidence which has not
been done by the appellant.
16 The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the case of
U. Sree Vs. Srinivasi (2003) DMC 91 (S.C.) that:
"Secondary evidence relating to contents of a
document is inadmissible until non production of
original is accounted for, so far as to bring it within
one or other cases provided for under Section 65 of
the Indian Evidence Act."
Admittedly, the medical papers are not the original or
certified copies issued by the B.A.R.C. The medical papers,
pages 1 to 52 are not in the handwriting of PW-2 Dr.
Mazumdar. He is not the author of the documents. He has not
given the proper explanation for non-production of the original
medical papers. The mandatory essential requirements of
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, have not been complied
with by the appellant. Therefore, in this situation and
considering the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the above authority, in our opinion, the appellant has failed to
prove the medical papers produced at Exh. 28. Therefore, the
medical papers produced at Exh. 28 cannot be read in evidence
against the respondent.
17 The respondent has specifically stated in his evidence

that due to project work and continuous work pressure he was
not getting proper sleep, and therefore, he used to take
medicines. Dr. Mazumdar has stated in his evidence that the
respondent used to take tablets as per his prescription. He has
also stated in his cross-examination that the respondent
approached B.A.R.C. hospital personally due to work pressure
and sleeplessness. He has stated in his evidence that he has
prescribed "Trinicalmplus and CPZ" to the respondent. PW-2
Dr. Mazumdar has further admitted in his cross-examination
that the above tablets reduce stress and enable proper sleep.
The respondent has taken medical treatment for that purpose.
Dr. Mazumdar has admitted in his cross-examination in para 13
that he has not prescribed any medicines to the respondent
between June, 2007 to September, 2007. He has further
admitted in the same paragraph that as per his advice the
respondent stopped taking medicines during the above period.
In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the evidence of
PW-2 Dr. Mazumdar does not prove that the respondent is
suffering from mental disorder to such an extent that it was
difficult for the appellant to live with the respondent.

18 The respondent has stated in his evidence that he
was working in B.A.R.C. i.e. Nuclear Power Corporation India
Ltd. He had been promoted. He also worked as the Secretary
of the society from 2002 to 2007. He is still performing his
official work and he is not suffering from any mental disorder.
Hence, on this basis, it can safely be held that he is not
suffering from any mental disorder to such an extent as to
make it difficult to live with him.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2013
Mrs. Hemali Bindesh Kelaiya ]

Vs.
Mr. Bindesh Jayantilal Kelaiya ]

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DECLARED ON : JANUARY 21, 2014
Citation; 2015(4) ALLMR 313

Print Page

Whether xerox copy of certificate is admissible in labour court?

 The Labour Court has, in the case at hand, placed reliance upon a Xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant- Corporation stating that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation as a Conductor between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989. While it is true that the Xerox copy may not be evidence by itself specially when the respondent had stated that the original was with him, but had chosen not to produce the same yet the fact remains that the document was allowed to be marked at the trial and signature of the officer issuing the certificate by another officer who was examined by the appellant. Strict rules of evidence, it is fairly well-settled, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court. That being so the admission of the Xerox copy of the certificate, without any objection from the appellant-Corporation, cannot be faulted at this belated stage. 

Supreme Court of India

Bhavnagar Mun.Corp.Etc vs Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & Anr on 3 December, 2014

Citation; 2015 ALLSCR166

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Print Page

When court can exhibit xerox copy of power of attorney?

Curiously enough, although it was pleaded by defendant
no.1 that the power of attorney was given to defendant no.2 for
limited purpose of managing the property, the said power of
attorney was not produced in the Court.
DW-1 did not
produce the original power of attorney to prove his case that
the second defendant, his elder brother, was only authorized
to manage the property. It is the plaintiff, who produced the
xerox copy of the registered power of attorney, which was

shown to the DW-1 during cross-examination, who admitted
the signature in the power of attorney.
All these relevant
pieces of evidence have not been appreciated by the High
Court in its right perspective. Instead of drawing adverse
inference against the defendant, in not producing the original
power of attorney, which was in their power and possession,
the High court has committed grave error in holding that the
power of attorney has not been proved as required under
Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. In our view, when the
xerox copy of power of attorney produced by the plaintiff in
evidence and the signature and the contents of the said power
of attorney were admitted by the defendant, there was no
question of proving the said document as required under the
Evidence Act. The judgment of reversal passed by the High
Court by coming to the aforesaid conclusion is wholly perverse
and contrary to law.
is
now
on
record
A certified copy of the power of attorney
and
it
falsifies
the
case
of
the
defendants/respondent undisputedly.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9947 OF
2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19555 of 2012)
Zarina Siddiqui

versus
A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan
Citation;AIR 2015SC580

Print Page

Whether court can decree suit on basis of copy of power of attorney?

 The Trial Court decreed the suit observing that as the parties had deposed that the original power of attorney was not in their possession, question of laying any further factual foundation could not arise. Further, the Trial Court took note of the fact that the respondent herein has specifically denied execution of power of attorney authorising his brother R. Viswanathan to alienate the suit property, but brushed aside the same observing that it was not necessary for the appellant/plaintiff to call upon the defendant to produce the original power of attorney on the ground that the photocopy of the power of  attorney was shown to the respondent herein in his cross-examination and he had admitted his signature. Thus, it could be inferred that it is the copy of the power of attorney executed by the respondent in favour of his brother (R. Viswanathan, second defendant in the suit) and therefore, there was a specific admission by the respondent having executed such document. So it was evident that the respondent had authorised the second defendant to alienate the suit property.

 In our humble opinion, the Trial Court could not proceed in such an unwarranted manner for the reason that the respondent had merely admitted his signature on the photocopy of the power of attorney and did not admit the contents thereof. More so, the court should have borne in mind that admissibility of a document or contents thereof may not necessary lead to drawing any inference unless the contents thereof have some probative value.

In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 684, this Court considered the issue in respect of admissibility of documents or contents thereof and held as under:

"Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be  admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and the weight of its probative value may be nil."

Supreme Court of India

H. Siddiqui (D) By Lr vs A. Ramalingam on 4 March, 2011

Author: ..........................J.

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

Citation;AIR2011SC1492, 2011(2)ALLMR(SC)938

Print Page

When Xerox copy of document can not be used as secondary evidence?

Until and unless there was a leave sought to tender

secondary evidence and leave was granted, no Secondary

evidence could have been looked into. Exh. 47 being secondary

evidence, could not have been looked into at all by lower

appellate Court. The logic behind the arrangement as found by

learned lower appellate Court in Exh. 47 is already considered by

me above. The arrangement allegedly made in favour of present

respondent does not appear to be consistent with the earlier part

of the document. However, it cannot be forgotten that Exh. 47 is

only a xerox copy. Whether the alleged portion is an alteration or

not also cannot be conclusively decided as original document has

not come on record. It is a well known fact that in the process of

preparing xerox copy, there can be several manipulations and

hence it is unsafe to act upon said xerox copy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 427 OF 1992
Ganpat Pandurang Ghongade

Versus
Nivrutti Pandurang Ghongade,

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
MARCH 14, 2008.
Citation: 2008(3)ALLMR629, 2008(5)MhLj153

Print Page

Under which circumstances xerox copy of cheque is admissible in evidence?

 The present Applicant Original accused has filed the aforesaid application for secondary evidence for accepting the xerox copy of the cheque. Therefore, the issue is whether the xerox copy of the cheque which has been accepted as a secondary evidence is justified or not.

The impugned order in

Revision Application No.28 of 2011 has reflected in detail, discussion about the facts. It is required to be mentioned that the complainant had given a notice Exhibit 54 to the accused to produce original cheque and also a notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the original accused was directed to produce the same within 15 days. The Applicant accused declined to produce the same.

It is in this

background the complainant had produced the xerox copy, which is sought to be challenged that the court has considered the secondary evidence and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dahod, which has been confirmed in the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.28 of 2011 by the Sessions Court is erroneous.

As could be seen, there is a reference to the memo produced with an endorsement fund insufficient. The deposition of the Bank Officer has also been recorded. The order also refers to the provisions of Section 66 of the Evidence Act and it has been recorded that the xerox copy of the cheque was produced at mark 23/1 prepared by mechanical process. Further, as the original accused, with whom the cheque was lying, had declined to produce the xerox copy of the cheque, has been accepted as a secondary evidence in light of the statutory provision of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, clearly referring to this aspect. Therefore, even after giving the notice as required under the Evidence Act, the original is not produced by the party, the secondary evidence could be relied upon.1

Gujarat High Court

Omprakash Chaudhary, Prop Of ... vs Goverdhan Automobiles on 4 February, 2013

Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla

Print Page

Whether Xerox copy of document is admissible in evidence if proper foundation is not laid?

In Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube and Another [1975(4) SCC 664], it was inter alia held as follows:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed Photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent no. 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the Photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of Respondent No. 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate the original document was in the possession of respondent no.1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the Photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court."
The admitted facts in the present case are that the original was with one P. Srinibas Rao. Only when conditions of Section prescribed in Section 65 are satisfied, documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. In the instant case clause (a) of Section 65 has not been satisfied. Therefore, the High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :  10.07.2012
The Doveton-Corrie Protestant
Schools Association 
Vs
Dr.Prof.Geoffery K.Francis .. 

Print Page