(Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 27.10.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.520 of 2025 in STC.No.55 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, Harur.)

1. Since the Criminal Revision Petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.

2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the order dated, 27.10.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.520 of 2025 in STC.No.55 of 2019, by the Judicial Magistrate, Harur.

3. The facts of the case of the Petitioner, in a nutshell, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Revision Case, and led to filing of this Criminal Revision Case and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

                     a) The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Complainant, Late Ameer Basha, who had originally preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Trial Court, against the Respondent in respect of dishonour of a cheque, dated 26.12.2018, bearing No.0747959 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Harur Branch. The said complaint was taken on file in STC.No.55 of 2019, on 07.02.2019, after recording the sworn statement of the original complainant. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original complainant died on 06.01.2020 and thereafter, the Petitioners herein were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased original complainant.

                     b) When the case was posted for marking of documents, it was found that the original cheque had been inadvertently lost or misplaced during the pendency of the proceedings and despite diligent efforts, the original cheque could not be traced. Therefore, the Petitioners had filed Crl.MP.No.520 of 2025 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, in STC.No.55 of 2019, to accept the xerox copy of the original cheque in question, as a secondary evidence on the ground that the original cheque was lost. By the impugned order, dated 27.10.2025, the Trial Court had dismissed the said Petition, on the grounds that there is no endorsement in the court records to confirm that the original cheque was verified by the Court at the time of sworn statement and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned. As against the same, the Petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Case.

4. It was the case of the Respondent before the Trial Court that if the cheque was indeed lost after filing of the complaint, steps should have been taken immediately, but only at the time of marking the documents, the Petitioners had made a plea that the original cheque was lost and that the Petitioners failed to mention the manner, in which the original cheque was lost. Therefore, the xerox copy of the original cannot be marked as a secondary evidence.

5. This court heard Ms.M.Pruntha for Mr.J.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that once the case was taken on file under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act arises that the Court had verified the original cheque before cognizance and that Section 65(c) contemplates that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a documents, when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it, in a reasonable time.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that the Petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased complainant, after the death of the original complainant, could not speak about the production of the original cheque at the time of sworn statement and that marking of xerox copy of a document does not amount to conclusive proof and that the Respondent is entitled to challenge the genuineness and admissibility of the said document, during the trial.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that in the impugned order, the Trial Court has given a finding that the sworn statement was recorded on 07.02.2019 and the case was taken on file on the same day and hence, it can be presumed that the original cheque was verified by the Trial Court at the time of sworn statement before cognizance and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the xerox copy of the cheque in question as a secondary evidence, as per the provisions of Sections 63(2) and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Petitioner has a good case and that if the xerox copy of the cheque in question is not allowed to be received as a secondary evidence, he will be put to huge monetary loss and thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his contentions, has relied on the judgement and order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 16.10.2019, passed in Crl.RC(MD)No.161 of 2014 and the judgement and order of this Court, reported in 2025 4 MLJ (Crl) 280 (Mohammed Iqbal Vs. S.Manonmanian) (Crl.RC(MD)No.662 of 2025, decided vide dated 16.09.2025.

10. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and also perused the entire materials available on record.

11. According to the Petitioners, after the sworn statement of the original complainant was recorded on 07.02.2019, the case was taken on file in STC.No.55 of 2019, on the same day. Thereafter, after the death of the deceased original complainant, the Petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased complainant, were not able to trace out the original cheque and it was lost. They were not able to produce the original cheque at the time of marking documents before the Trial Court. Once the case was taken on file under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after recording the sworn statement, it can be presumed that the original cheque was verified by the Trial Court at the time of sworn statement before cognizance and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned. Hence, as per the provisions of Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as a secondary evidence, but it failed to do so.

12. It was the case of the Respondent before the Trial Court that only after comparison of the xerox copy of the original cheque with the original cheque, the xerox copy of the same can be received as a secondary evidence and that the xerox copy of the original cheque cannot be marked as secondary evidence, as it would cause prejudice to the Respondent and that since the Petitioners had failed to prove the missing of the original cheque, by producing valid and concrete evidence, the Trial Court had rightly refused to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque in question, by the impugned order.

13. In the present case, amount covered under the cheque in question is Rs.30,00,000/-. The original complainant was filed by the deceased complainant, Ameer Basha under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the Respondent. The case was taken on file in STC.No.55 of 2019 on 07.02.2019, based on the sworn statement recorded on the same date. The original complainant died on 06.01.2020. Subsequently, the Petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased original complainant, were impleaded, as the legal representatives of the deceased original complainant. At the stage of marking of documents, since the original cheque was not available, the Petitioners had filed the above petition, seeking to mark the xerox copy of the original cheque, as a secondary evidence and it was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there is no endorsement in the court records to confirm that the original cheque was verified by the Court at the time of the sworn statement and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned.

14. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque in question as a secondary evidence, is justifiable and maintainable and whether it was passed in commensurate with the relevant provisions of law, namely, Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act?

15. The admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly, Sections 63 and 65. For deciding the said issue, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under:-

                     63. Secondary Evidence:- Secondary evidence means and includes –

                     (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

                     (2) copies made from the original by the mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;

                     (3) copies made from or compared with the original;

                     (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

                     (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

                     64. Proof of documents by primary evidence:- Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases herein after mentioned.

                     65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given:- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:-

                     (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the 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, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

                     (b)When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

                     (c)When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

                     (d)When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

                     (e)When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;

                     (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

                     (g)When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

                     In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.

                     In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

                     In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

                     In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

16. The general principle is that if the original document exists and is available, it must be produced, because it is the best evidence. However, if the original is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible.

17. The reading of the proviso to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act would make it clear that Section 65 of the Act has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the person, who is unable to produce the original. Thus, the secondary evidence relating to document may be given.

18. As per Sections 63(2) and 63(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence means and includes copies made from the original by mechanical process, which themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies made from or compared with the original, respectively.

19. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the Rule that the documents must be proved by primary evidence by production of original documents. But, Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides exception to the aforesaid Rule, which envisages various classes of cases, in which, the secondary evidence relating to the documents can be produced.

20. As per Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence is admissible when the original has been destroyed or lost.

21. In the present case, it is seen from the impugned order that the case was taken on file on 07.02.2019, based on the sworn statement recorded on the same date. It has been also observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that the sworn statement was recorded on 07.02.2019 and the case was taken on file, thereby meaning that the Trial Court itself received the original cheque, verified the same and returned the same to the original complainant on the same date, on retaining the xerox copy of the same. Thus, it can be held that the Trial Court, only after due enquiry, satisfaction and comparison, it had returned the original cheque to the original complainant, after retaining the xerox copy of the same. Thus, the provisions of Sections 63(2) and (3) are satisfied.

22. This Court is of the view that the finding that there is no endorsement in the court records to confirm that the original cheque was verified by the Court at the time of the sworn statement and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned, was made by the Trial Court, without application of mind and without adhering to the provisions of Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

23. Further, in the present case, the original cheque is lost. Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act permits the admissibility of the secondary evidence, if the original document is lost. Thus, the provisions of Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act are also met.

24. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court, having given a finding that the case was taken on file in STC.No.55 of 2019 on 07.02.2019, based on the sworn statement recorded on the same date, it can be presumed that the Trial Court itself verified the original cheque in question and satisfied with the same and returned the same to the original complainant and hence, the Trial Court, ought to have received the xerox copy of the original cheque as a secondary evidence, by allowing Crl.M.P.No.520 of 2025, filed by the Petitioners, seeking to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence, but, it failed to do so, resulting in great miscarriage of justice.

25. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by its judgement and order, dated 16.10.2019, in Crl.RC(MD)No.161 of 2014, in similar circumstances, was pleased to observe as under:-

                     “7. This Court, by order dated, 13.09.2019, called for a report from the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, as to under what circumstances, the original cheque and the pronote were handed over to the Respondent/ complainant and whether any endorsement has been obtained for having returned the cheque and pronote? and the learned Judicial Magistrate has also submitted his report.

                     8. It is seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate, while recording the sworn statement has verified the pronote and the cheque produced before the Court and retained the xerox copies of those documents. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate has also made an endorsement in the photo copies of the said pronote and cheque on 13.08.2010 as such the original. After marking those two documents, as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in chief examination on 22.07.2011, he returned the pronote and the cheque to the custody of the complainant. But, he ought not to have returned the same and now the complainant has taken a plea that it was lost in his custody. Further, the photo copies of those documents with the endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate were very much available before the Trial Court and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed this application with costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Madurai on or before 06.01.2014.

                     9. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, embodies the Rule that the documents must be proved by primary evidence by production of original documents. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides exception to the aforesaid Rule, which envisages the various classes of cases in which, the secondary evidence relating to the documents can be produced.

                     10. After the original is lost or destroyed, the secondary evidence is admissible. As per Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the copies made from the original by mechanical process, which themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy as secondary evidence and Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, permits the admissibility of the secondary evidence, if the original document is lost or destroyed.

                     11. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been made in order to safeguard the interest of the person, who is unable to produce the original. In this case, when the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the original pronote as well as the cheque were produced and were also marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. After collecting the xerox copies of the said pronote and the cheque, the learned Judicial Magistrate returned the same to the complainant with an endorsement in the xerox copies and when the xerox copies with the endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate were very much available, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly allowed the Petition and there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

                     12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, considering the age of the complainant, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible. ”

26. In 2025 4 MLJ (Crl) 280 (Mohammed Iqbal Vs. S.Manonmanian), this Court was pleased to observe, as under:-

                     “15. The general principle is that if the original document exists and is available, it must be produced because it is the best evidence. However, if the original is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible.

                     16. The reading of the proviso to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act would make it clear that Section 65 of the Act has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the person, who is unable to produce the original. Thus, the secondary evidence relating to document may be given.

                     17. As per Sections 63(2) and 63(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence means and includes copies made from the original by mechanical process, which themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies made from or compared with the original, respectively.

                     18. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the Rule that the documents must be proved by primary evidence by production of original documents. But, Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides exception to the aforesaid Rule, which envisages various classes of cases, in which, the secondary evidence relating to the documents can be produced.

                     19. As per Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence is admissible when the original has been destroyed or lost.

                     21. Further, in the present case, the original cheque is lost. Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act permits the admissibility of the secondary evidence, if the original document is lost. Thus, the provisions of Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act are also met.

                     22. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court, having given a finding that after recording of sworn statement of the Petitioner on 15.07.2014 and after making an endorsement to that effect in the sworn statement, the Petitioner had taken back the original cheque, which would mean that the Trial Court itself verified the original cheque in question and satisfied with the same and returned the same to the Petitioner, ought to have received the xerox copy of the original cheque as a secondary evidence, by allowing Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2025, filed by the Petitioner, seeking to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence, but, it failed to do so, resulting in great miscarriage of justice.

                     24. In the light of the discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, refusing to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque, only on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the cheque was lost, without adhering to the provisions of Sections 63(2) and (3) and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be sustained and as such, it requires interference by this Court.

                     25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated, 15.04.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.101 of 2025 in STC.No.476 of 2016, by the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai, is set aside. The Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai shall receive the xerox copy of the original cheque in question as a secondary evidence on record, expedite the trial and conclude the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. ”

27. In the light of the discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, refusing to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque, only on the ground that there is no endorsement in the court records to confirm that the original cheque was verified by the Court at the time of the sworn statement and that a xerox copy was retained or the original was returned, without adhering to the provisions of Sections 63(2) and (3) and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be sustained and as such, it requires interference by this Court.

28. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated, 27.10.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.520 of 2025 in STC.No.55 of 2019, by the Judicial Magistrate, Harur, is set aside and reversed. The Judicial Magistrate, Harur, is hereby directed to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque in question as a secondary evidence on record, expedite the trial and conclude the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the necessary parties to the case. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.

29. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court for its necessary and information.