I am sorry, but there seems to be some confusion. Section 63(1) is a section within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, not a case title. It defines secondary evidence. There is no "case" with that title decided by the "Union of India - Subsection" on March 15, 1872. The Indian Evidence Act itself was enacted on March 15, 1872.
To provide a helpful response, I will instead summarize the meaning and application of Section 63(1) within the context of the Indian Evidence Act, and then provide a hypothetical case example to illustrate its use.
Short Summary
Section 63(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines one type of secondary evidence: certified copies of original documents. This section allows for the admission of these copies as evidence when the original document is unavailable or its production is excused under the Act. The provision aims to balance the need for reliable evidence with practical considerations of document accessibility.
Facts
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, distinguishes between primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence is the document itself produced for inspection. Secondary evidence includes copies, oral accounts of the contents of a document, and photographs. Section 63 lists several types of secondary evidence, with clause (1) specifically addressing certified copies. The Act recognizes that original documents may be lost, destroyed, or difficult to produce, necessitating the use of secondary evidence.
Issues
Petitioner's Arguments (Hypothetical Case)
In a hypothetical case where a petitioner seeks to admit a certified copy of a property deed, the petitioner might argue that the original deed was lost in a fire and that the certified copy obtained from the registrar's office is admissible under Section 63(1) read with Section 65 (cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given). They would argue that the certified copy accurately reflects the contents of the original deed and is reliable evidence of ownership.
Respondent's Arguments (Hypothetical Case)
The respondent might argue that the petitioner has not sufficiently proven the loss of the original deed. They might also challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the certified copy, alleging that it does not accurately reflect the contents of the original document, or that the certification process was flawed.
Court's Reasoning
The court would examine whether the petitioner has satisfied the conditions for admitting secondary evidence under Section 65. This includes proving the loss or destruction of the original document, or demonstrating that it is in the possession of the opposing party who refuses to produce it after notice. The court would also scrutinize the certification process to ensure that the copy is indeed a true and accurate representation of the original. The court may consider the reliability and credibility of the certified copy in light of all the circumstances.
Conclusion
The court would rule on the admissibility of the certified copy based on whether the conditions of Section 65 and the requirements for a certified copy under Section 63(1) have been met. If admitted, the certified copy would be considered as evidence of the contents of the original document. If not admitted, the petitioner would need to rely on other admissible evidence to prove their claim.
Get instant answers specific to this case
