ORDER : 1. The present Misc. Petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner against the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No. 101/2020 (88/2020) whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 833/2015, whereby an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that in criminal case respondent No. 2 without filing original document has filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for taking the same on record as secondary evidence to prove execution of sale agreement between accused and respondent No. 2, which was allowed by the learned trial Court without following the process as prescribed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. He would further submitted that no agreement was ever executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 but a photostat copy of false and fabricated document, filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed to be admitted and exhibited as evidence by the trial Court. He would further submitted that if any of the original document is not available or have lost or destroyed then, under the law party may be permitted to lead secondary evidence but before admitting any document, the conditions as prescribed under the Act have to be fulfilled but in the present case, learned trial Court has failed to consider the conditions as prescribed before admission of secondary evidence. He relied upon the judgment delivered in J. Yashoa vs. K. Shoba Rani, Manu/SCX/7314/2007 : 2007 (5) SCC 630. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for complainantrespondent. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent would submitted that the document has already been exhibited and admitted in evidence before by the trial Court thus, the petition has already rendered infructuous. He would further submitted that mere exhibition of document does not give any right to file the present petition. He would further submitted that learned trial Court has supplemented the order with valid and cogent reasons and there are no grounds for interference by Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. He would further submitted that learned trial Court has supplemented the order with valid and cogent reasons and there are no grounds for interference by Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record. 5. The fact of the matter is that an FIR No. 340/2014 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Bhilwara at the instance of respondent No. 2, wherein after investigation, charge sheet under Sections 452-323/34 of the IPC and 406-420 of IPC was filed against present petitioner and Smt. Vahida Khanam. Thereafter charges under Section 452/34, 323/34, 406 in alternative 420 IPC against present petitioner were framed. Few witnesses were examined by the prosecution. A perusal of the record further indicated that respondent No. 2 Smt. Madhubala was examined before learned trial Court as PW-4 and her examination in chief was recorded, but nothing to suggest that evidence of PW-4 was completed. A case status report as downloaded from the E-Court Portal shows that on 08.09.2022, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence and thereafter it was listed for arguments on applications on next date of hearing i.e. 27.09.2022, which is still at the same stage. The allegation in the charge sheet are that present petitioner, who was owner of Vehicle Mahendra Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-06-C-7840, purchased on finance, allegedly sold this vehicle to respondent No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. It was further averred that said amount was received in cash by present petitioner but for execution of documents and also handover the possession, some time was sought by petitioner, which was allowed by respondent No. 2. Then, Respondent no. 2 levelled the allegation that petitioner thereafter sold this Vehicle to one Smt. Kanta W/o Ishwar Lal. The petitioner denied the execution of agreement to sale or any kind of transaction with respondent No. 2. The charge sheet further indicated that original sale agreement was neither recovered nor produced during investigation. 6. An application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was filed and it was opposed on two grounds. Firstly, the very existence of documents and secondly, filing of application under signature of lawyer or Public Prosecutor. 7. As regards to procedure is concerned, Section 63 of the Evidence Act defines the secondary evidence with certain illustrations. 6. An application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was filed and it was opposed on two grounds. Firstly, the very existence of documents and secondly, filing of application under signature of lawyer or Public Prosecutor. 7. As regards to procedure is concerned, Section 63 of the Evidence Act defines the secondary evidence with certain illustrations. Further, under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, it is provided that in what cases/conditions secondary evidence relating to documents is permissible. For ready reference Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act are reproduced herein-below: 63. Secondary evidence - Secondary evidence means and includes: (1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies. (3) Copies made from or compared with the original. (4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them. (5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations: (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. (b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original. (c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original. (d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. xxx xxx xxx 65. (d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. xxx xxx xxx 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given - Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases: (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power - of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it. (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest. (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74. (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence; [India] to be given in evidence. (g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 8. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 8. Herein, the learned trial Court while relying upon Section 65 (c) has also referred to Section 63 (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act and permitted the petitioner to file document in evidence, which was further exhibited during the examination-in-chief of PW-4. 9. A bare look at Section 65 (C) prescribes the situation when the original was destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. Thus, the conditions as provided herein have to be fulfiled before entering any document in as secondary evidence by learned trial Court. A perusal of report submitted in charge sheet indicated that a photostat copy was submitted and complainant was bound down to produce the original before concerned court. The application submitted for permission itself reflected that respondent No. 2 had provided a photocopy to police and still the original stamp remained in her possession but same was not traceble after search and no chances of recovery of the same in immediate future. It was defence of present petitioner that he had never executed any sale agreement in favour of respondent No. 2. A photocopy of the said document placed on record indicated that it was not attested by any authority including Notary. It is well known that whenever a sale transaction of vehicle is executed then sale letter as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules is required to be executed. The execution of sale agreement was doubtful and nowhere execution was admitted. Hence, looking to the conditions as prescribed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act itself and following the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J. Yashoda (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the document which was claimed as a photocopy of original and made from mechanical process cannot be permitted to be admitted as secondary evidence unless the conditions as prescribed under Section 65 (C) of the Evidence Act are satisfied. Thus, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the correct position of law. 10. Considering the overall facts available on record, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have committed illegality in passing the impugned orders and the same are not in conformity with law. Thus, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No. 101/2020 (88/2020) and the order dated 29.08.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 833/2015 are hereby quashed and set aside and application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, as discussed herein above is dismissed.