JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1 Kishangarh Bas, Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No.21/2013 whereby photo copy of rent deed has been admitted during the statement of witness Prabhakar Sharma inspite of objection of the petitioners and provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of Evidence Act have not been followed. 2. The only contention of the present petitioners is that complainant lodged a complaint against the present petitioners on which FIR No. 223/2009 has been registered under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 and 379 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and trial was further proceeded. On 5.7.2013, during recording of statement of PW/1 Prabhakar Sharma, learned APP produced photo copy of rent-deed and wanted to exhibit the same. The petitioner objected the same that document which is not in original cannot be marked as Exhibit unless a due procedure established under Sections 65 and 66 are followed but the court rejected the objection and marked photo copy as exhibit as secondary evidence. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has left the matter on the discretion of the court. 4. The perusal of order impugned goes to show that without following the procedure under Sections 65 and 66 of Evidence Act, the photo copy of the rent deed marked as Exhibit, the order is per se illegal and furthermore, presumption has been drawn against the petitioners under Section 114 (g)(h) of Evidence Act. 5. In view of the above, the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (JD)and Judl. Magistrate (First Class) Kishangarh Bas, Alwar in case No. 182/2009 is set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor is free to move before the court below under Section 75 of the Evidence Act and needless to say that on presenting application by the prosecution,the court below will decide the application in accordance with provisions contained above.Petition Disposed of. *******