Photocopy Alone Is Not Proof: Supreme Court Explains Secondary Evidence Law
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that a photocopy of a document cannot be treated as legal evidence unless the strict conditions for producing secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act are properly fulfilled.
The Court was dealing with a dispute where a property sale was carried out based on a photocopied Power of Attorney (PoA). The original document was never produced. The defendants relied only on a notarised photocopy to justify the sale.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held that merely filing a photocopy does not make it admissible evidence. Under the Evidence Act, secondary evidence is allowed only when the original document cannot be produced for valid reasons, such as loss, destruction, or possession with the opposite party.
The Court explained that admitting secondary evidence is a two-step process. First, the party must prove why the original document cannot be produced. Second, the party must prove that the photocopy is a true and authentic copy of the original. Both conditions must be satisfied together.
Importantly, the Court said that marking a document as an exhibit does not automatically prove it. Courts must still examine whether the legal requirements for admissibility are met. If the original document itself is not proved, the party cannot rely on its photocopy.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision and ruled that the sale based on the photocopied PoA was invalid. The appeal was dismissed.
