Judgment : S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. After notice of motion, the second Appeal was listed. By consent of both the counsels, the second appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a necklace, weighing about six sovereigns from the defendants. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff has entrusted the jewel to the first defendant for safe custody and when the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the same, the first defendant was evading. Subsequently the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had pledged the jewel with the second defendant and borrowed some amount. The suit has been filed for return of the jewellery by the first defendant after discharging the loan with the second defendant or to recover the value of the jewel. 3. The first defendant denied the entrustment. 4. However, both the courts below have relied upon the oral evidence let in by the parties as well as the statement given by the first defendant before the police officials, during the enquiry, on the complaint given by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 5. The two contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is mat Ex. A.4 is only a copy of the statement given by the appellant and it was marked through P.W.5, who is now working as Sub Inspector in Karur. During 1987 he was working as Sub Inspector, in Kattuputhur Police Station, where the plaintiff has given the complaint against the first defendant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.5 has admitted that Ex.A.4 the copy was prepared only after verifying the original and when the original is available the secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence. 6. The next question raised by the appellant is that as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the Statement Ex.A.4 would amount to a confession by the 1st defendant and hence the same cannot be put against the first defendant. 7. 6. The next question raised by the appellant is that as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the Statement Ex.A.4 would amount to a confession by the 1st defendant and hence the same cannot be put against the first defendant. 7. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned counsel relied upon Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act and contend that when P.W.5 the Sub Inspector of Police has admitted that the original of Ex.A.4 is available and the copy was prepared only on verifying the original, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to produce the original. The copy of the document as Secondary evidence can be relied upon only when the original is not available. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the concerned Sub Inspector, who is now working at Kattuputhur is P.W.4. He has stated in his evidence as follows:- (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. required.) When the complaint was taken on file, P.W.5 has the concerned sub Inspector and now he is not working in the concerned Police Station. P.W.5 has been examined only to mark Ex.A.4, as the same was recorded by him. It could be seen that tough P.W.5 has stated. (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. required.) It has not been elicited that when the copy was prepared. Even in the cross examination the first defendant has not put any suggestion to the effect that Ex.A.4 was prepared either recently or after filing of the suit. In the absence of any evidence to show that Ex.A.4 was furnished recently, the court can presume that perhaps Ex.A.4 might have been given immediately after the statement was recorded. The concerned witness, who is P.W.4 has categorically stated that the originals are not available. As such, reliance placed on Ex.A.4 by the Courts below is quite correct. 8. So far as the second question is concerned, reliance was placed on Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Of course Section 25 reads as follows:- " No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offices". Section 25 of the Evidence Act will be attracted only to the Criminal Proceedings. 8. So far as the second question is concerned, reliance was placed on Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Of course Section 25 reads as follows:- " No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offices". Section 25 of the Evidence Act will be attracted only to the Criminal Proceedings. Suppose a criminal case has been registered against the first defendant for criminal misappropriation, then it would have been a good defence for him to contend the statement given by him to the police is not admissible and that cannot be relied upon. Here it is only a civil liability and as such, the statement made by the concerned person is admissible unless the concerned party establishes that the statement was obtained by fraud or coercion. Hence the defence now taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no avail. 9. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.