Honble SAXENA, J. — Heard. Perused the order dated 8.6.94, whereby learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Asind allowed the application filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the true copy of arrest memo dated 11.7.83, by which the petitioner was alleged to have been arrested under Sec. 41 read with Section 109 Cr.P.C. be taken on record the further held that it was a true copy of arrest memo, genuineness thereof could not be disputed. He further held that the petitioner shall be free to send for the original arrest memo and cross examine PW 9 and Investigating Officer Rameshwarlal. (2). The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act before the trial court. The alleged incident took place in the year 1983. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was arrested on 11.7.83 under Sec. 41 read with Sec. 109 Cr.P.C. and that in pursuance to his information given under Sec. 27 of Evidence Act, the contraband opium was recovered. However no arrest memo was filed alongwith challan papers. When Rameswarlal Investigating Officer was being examined in the trial court, the Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted the carbon copy of arrest memo dated 11.7.83 and prayed that the said document be taken on record. On the same day the Investigating Officer put his signature on that document certifying that to be a true copy. Apparently, the said copy of the arrest memo is secondary evidence, which cannot be taken on record until and unless it is shown that original arrest memo has been lost or the same is not traceable and necessary permission of the court to admit the such document in secondary evidence is sought. Movrover, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was arrested on 11.7.83, that he had volunteered information u/s 27 of the Act and that in pursuance thereof he got recovered contraband opium. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, committed grave error in taking carbon copy of arrest memo on record without complying with the provisions of Sec. 63 and 65 of Evidence Act and in holding that the genuineness of the said cannot be doubted. (3). In these circumstances the impugned order is tantamount to abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same. (4). (3). In these circumstances the impugned order is tantamount to abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same. (4). Accordingly, this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned order sent to learned dated 8.6.94 is hereby set aside. The copy of this order be lower court for guidance.