JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th June, 2014 whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "Act of 1872") was allowed. 2. Learned counsel submits that an FIR was lodged at the instance of manager of the bank regarding alleged fraudulent act in regard to cheque. The prosecution sought time to produce the original cheque and the matter was dragged almost for ten years. The bank did not produce the cheque despite opportunities, thus prosecution filed application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 to lead secondary evidence. The application aforesaid was accepted in ignorance of the fact that none of the grounds set out under Section 65(c) of the Act of 1872 is made out. In view of the above, the application should have been dismissed by the Court below. 3. The arguments are supported by the judgment in the case of Murlidhar Yadav & Ors. v. Smt. Dipti Singh & Ors., reported in 2006(3) RLW 2362. Therein, the petitioners were provided opportunity to satisfy the Court by leading evidence to prove that photocopy of agreement is genuine agreement but they failed to prove the same. In the background aforesaid, photocopy of agreement was not allowed to be considered 4. The other judgment is in the case of Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani reported in 2007(2) WLC SC 253 . Therein, referring Section 63(a) of the Act of 1872, it was found that photocopies cannot be compared with the original, thus such photocopies of agreement are not admissible in evidence. 5. Learned counsel further submits that case is pending for last 24 years and the accused is suffering on that count. The delay is entirely on the part of the prosecution. The aforesaid aspect should have been considered by the Court below. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. 7. The impugned order has been passed on application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872. It is to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. The reasons assigned were considered by the Court below and finding that despite direction of Court, the Bank did not produce the cheque. It was finally submitted that after expiry of required period, the documents have been destroyed. It is to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. The reasons assigned were considered by the Court below and finding that despite direction of Court, the Bank did not produce the cheque. It was finally submitted that after expiry of required period, the documents have been destroyed. In the background aforesaid Section 65(c) comes in picture because documents are not in possession of the prosecution. The application was allowed to lead secondary evidence. The issue as to whether it is admissible under the Evidence Act in reference to Section 63 of the Act of 1872 is concerned, the issue aforesaid has not been raised and decided by the Court below, however, it can be raised by the petitioner by making an application. So far as the impugned order is concerned, I do not find any error therein because the document was destroyed by the bank and not by the prosecution. In view of above, no reason remains to cause interference in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed, so as the stay application. 9. However, looking to the fact that trial is pending for last 24 years, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For the aforesaid purpose, they would take proceedings on day-to-day basis and if, prosecution try to delay the process, the Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate adverse order on that. The delay in trial may not caused now looking to the period of trial by now.Petition dismissed. *******