V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant was convicted under sections 447 and 332 I. P. Code by the J. M. F. C. Amreli. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge Amreli dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. In revision it is urged that the appellate Court was wrong in considering Ex. 30 the cross complaint which the accused had given to the police and on the basis of that disbelieving the version of the accused. ( 2 ) THE cross complaint is nothing but a former statement of his and can be used to corroborate or contradict the accused only ii the accused gives evidence in Court. This he has not done. The cross-complaint cannot therefore be used either to corroborate or to contradict the accused. The document can also go as an admission. But in this case however if the document contains an admission made by the accused it cannot be used by the accused in his favour in view of sec. 21 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: ( 3 ) ADMISSIONS are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest except in the following cases :- (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it when it is of such a nature that if the person making it were dead it would be relevant as between third persons under section 22 (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body relevant or in issue made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed and is accompanied by conduct rendering the falsehood improbable. (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the cross-complaint was produced by the accused himself through a defence witness and it could not have been allowed in. view of the provisions of sec. (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the cross-complaint was produced by the accused himself through a defence witness and it could not have been allowed in. view of the provisions of sec. 21 of the Evidence Act and in view of the fact that the accused had not himself given evidence at the trial. This question relates to the relevancy of facts sec. 5 of the Evidence Act reads as follows :evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non- existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no others. EXPLANATION:- This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) WHAT is irrelevant cannot be admitted in evidence by the Court. It is the duty of the Court to disallow the evidence which is not relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act ( 6 ) IT is also urged that what has been produced is a copy (Ex. 30) made by the police of the complaint given to them and that it is not a certified copy. It is conceded by the Government Pleader that this is not a certified copy. If the cognisable complaint is a public document only a certified copy can be admitted in evidence in view of the provisions of sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. This section provides inter alia that when the original is the document of which a certified copy is permitted to be given in evidence a certified copy of the document can be given as secondary evidence but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible. ( 7 ) IF the complaint given is not a public document then the document itself should have been admitted in evidence as it is available in view of the provisions of sec. 62 of the Evidence Act. For both these reasons the learned Sessions Judge was not right in considering Ex. 30 in deciding the appeal before him. ( 7 ) IF the complaint given is not a public document then the document itself should have been admitted in evidence as it is available in view of the provisions of sec. 62 of the Evidence Act. For both these reasons the learned Sessions Judge was not right in considering Ex. 30 in deciding the appeal before him. ( 8 ) THE revision application is therefore allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal is set aside. He is directed to decide the appeal afresh excluding Ex. 30 from consideration. Application allowed. .