Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127731 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27592 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar, as well as proceeding of S.T. No. 1844 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 905 of 2022 (State of U.P. versus Razi Yadav and other), under Section 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that during trial of S.T. No. 1844 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 905 of 2022 (State of U.P. versus Razi Yadav and other) in evidence of PW-4 Meena Kumari a photostat copy of affidavit previously sent by her to the Police Commissioner by registered post was proved which is in violation of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that since the document was a photostat copy, it is inadmissible in evidence and further it cannot be proved in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that by impugned order the photostat document was permitted to be exhibited during trial which is a grave illegality. As such, the impugned order permitting that photostat document to be exhibited be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that since the original affidavit was not in the possession of PW-4 and was a lost document, as such, its photostat copy was admissible in evidence in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of Evidence Act. As such, the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing that document to be exhibited during trial. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of record, it appears that Section 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits that 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 then secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. 6. In this case, since the original affidavit was sent to the Commissioner of Police, which was lost and its photocopy was in the possession of PW-4 Meena Kumari, as such, it was allowed by the trial court during her testimony to be exhibited. It is not a case where the original was in the possession of PW-4 or the Investigating Officer or some other person and it was deliberately concealed by them. Further it is also mentioned in the case diary. 7. In view of the above facts, the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing the photostat copy of that affidavit to be exhibited during trial. As such, this application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. have got no merits and is accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad