JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.21, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby he accepted the application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and partly allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 by summoning Lalit Kishore Sharma and Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj as witnesses. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a grievance that the Court below gravely erred to permit the prosecution to prove photostat copies of the accounts book as secondary evidence. 3. Thus, the argument, which has been raised before this Court is whether the photostat copies of the accounts book can be made admissible by proving the same by way of leading secondary evidence. 4. Section 63 of the Evidence Act prescribes documents which can be taken into account as secondary evidence. Photocopy neither is certified copy nor it is a copy made from the original by mechanical processes which ensure the accuracy of the copy. 5. A Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Darshan Kaur vs. The Amritsar Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited & Anr., 2010(1) RCR(Civil) 747 , held as under:- "10. It is also submitted that the aforesaid findings have not been even referred to while passing the judgment of reversal by the learned first Appellate Court. The second question of law is thus answered that Photostat copy of document is neither a primary nor a secondary evidence. Original document is primary evidence and a copy thereof can be led as secondary evidence in accordance with the provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are both contrary to the settled law, therefore, the same is hereby set aside and judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The appeal is allowed with costs." 6. Supreme Court also in case of Smt. Y. Yashoda vs. Smt. K. Sobha Rani, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 840 , held that photocopy cannot be termed as secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 7. The appeal is allowed with costs." 6. Supreme Court also in case of Smt. Y. Yashoda vs. Smt. K. Sobha Rani, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 840 , held that photocopy cannot be termed as secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 7. In view of above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court to the extent whereby prosecution was permitted to prove photostat copies as secondary evidence is set aside as photostat copies cannot be termed as secondary evidence. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of.