JUDGMENT : Secondaryevidence of a document which is lost or difficult to trace can be adduced intwo ways; ( i ) by oral evidence persons who werepresents when the documents was executed; (ii) by a certified copy of theoriginal documents. Here in the present case the document is not the certifiedcopy of the original document. Here in the present case the applicant washaving true copy of the agreement and he filed an application for production oforiginal which was in possession of the non-applicant., Learned JMFC allowedthe application but non-applicant failed to produce the same and, therefore,applicant filed an application to allow secondary evidence. There is noevidence on record to show that original was with the applicant or original waslost or difficult to trace, then only the secondary evidence is admissible inlaw. Here in the present case original of the agreement was not traceable. Theapplicant in his application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C .very specifically stated that the original of the agreement was with therespondent-complainant. No replay was filed by the respondent to deny this factnor he filed any reply to the applications undersection 65 of the Evidence Act as well as under section 311 of Cr.P.C . Both the above applications were orally opposed bythe learned counsel for the non-applicant. A copy of the document cannot beadmitted as secondary evidence unless it is proved that the same is lost Herein the present case there was not proper and sufficient explanation by therespondent that no such agreement was singed by her or she was not havingoriginal or original copy of the agreement was with the applicant. The learnedJMFC committed legal error in rejecting the application filed by the applicantunder Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Here in the present case there is no finding that originalagreement was lost or destroyed nor any affidavit was given by therespondent-complainant that she is unable to produce it within a reasonabletime for any other reason. Undersection 311 of Cr.P.C . the Court is having power tosummon material witness or examine person present. Here in the present caseapplication under section 311 of Cr.P.C . for callingthe witnesses was filed for summoning Notary Ramji Shrivastava , G.P. Thakur and Jitendra Saini . Undersection 311 of Cr.P.C . the Court is having power tosummon material witness or examine person present. Here in the present caseapplication under section 311 of Cr.P.C . for callingthe witnesses was filed for summoning Notary Ramji Shrivastava , G.P. Thakur and Jitendra Saini . The applicationfor calling the witnesses as Court witnesses was filed to prove the executionof agreement between the applicant and respondent, by which against the cheques in breach of conditions of said agreement, therespondent-complainant has taken the possession of shop of applicant, which aremuch valued above the value of cheques and afterselling the shops as per the agreement she would adjust the amount of cheques as alleged by her in such a situation learned trialcourt committed an error in rejecting the applicationfor calling witnesses. Both these applications were rejected on technicalitythat the above applications were file just to delay and right to adduceevidence in defence by the applicant was closed andrevision against the said order was dismissed. It is not in dispute the section311 gives wide power to the Court to summon any personas a witness and examine them before the trial court, if it is necessary in theinterest of justice. Here in the present case witnesses are Notary whonotarized the agreement executed between the applicant and respondent and twoother witnesses who are attesting witnesses to the agreement. Itis cardinal rule that best available evidence should be brought before theCourt and or the points in issue. Under section 311 the Court should exerciseits inherent power in the interest of justice to serve the cause of justice. Consideringthe totality of facts and circumstances, learned JMFCX committed materialirregularity and error of law in exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting theapplications on technical ground and therefore, the impugned order is liable tobe set aside and is accordingly set aside. Under these circumstances both theapplications filed by the applicant are allowed. Learned trial Court isdirected to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the caseexpeditiously, as early as possible and no unnecessary adjournment shall begranted to the parties. The Parties are directed t appear before the JMFC, Bhopal on 12th July, 2010 . Inthe result, both these revisions are allowed.