The key legal issues for consideration were:

1. Whether the trial court was correct in refusing to admit the xerox copy of the cheque as secondary evidence simply on the ground of “no evidence of loss”.

2. Whether the conditions under Sections 63(2)&(3) and Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act were satisfied such that a photocopy could be admitted in a NI Act proceeding.

3. The interaction of the Evidence Act provisions with the statutory scheme of the NI Act in cheque‐bounce litigation.

 Section 63, Evidence Act defines “secondary evidence”. Sub-sections (2) and (3) are relevant:

63. Secondary Evidence.—Secondary evidence means and includes—

(2) copies made from the original by mechanical process which itself ensures the accuracy of the copy; and copies made from or compared with the original.

(3) …

Section 64 provides the general rule that documents must be proved by primary evidence (i.e., production of the original) except in the cases mentioned in Section 65.

Section 65 lists the cases in which secondary evidence may be given. Sub-section (c) is pivotal:

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: …

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence cannot for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect produce it in reasonable time.

([CaseMine][1])

 In NI Act proceedings (Sections 138, 147), the complainant must produce the cheque as part of the complaint and the evidence in the trial. The best evidence rule applies, but the Evidence Act exceptions allow admission of secondary evidence when the original is unavailable for justified reasons.

The Madras High Court (Justice Shamim Ahmed) held as follows:

 The Court noted that the trial court had itself recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner on 15.07.2014 and made an endorsement in the sworn statement to the effect that the original cheque was returned to the petitioner on the same date after verification, and that a xerox copy was retained. 

 On this finding, the Court held that the trial court did verify the original cheque and retain a xerox copy — meaning that the conditions of Section 63(2) & (3) (copies made from or compared with the original) were satisfied. 

Further, since the original cheque was subsequently lost (as averred) the condition under Section 65(c) (original lost) was also fulfilled. 

The Court concluded that the trial court’s refusal to permit the xerox copy as secondary evidence, solely because there was no “evidence of loss” from the earlier counsel, without applying the correct legal test under Sections 63 and 65, was unsustainable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 

 Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 and directed the trial court (Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai) to receive the xerox copy of the cheque as secondary evidence, expedite the trial and conclude it in accordance with law. 

This decision has several important implications for lawyers handling cheque-bounce cases:

1. Admittance of photocopies when original is lost: It reinforces that the inability to produce the original cheque does not automatically lead to exclusion of a photocopy. If the original was produced earlier, verified by the court, and a photocopy retained, the conditions of S 63/S 65 may be satisfied.

2. Trial court duty to check endorsement/verification: The fact that the trial court made an endorsement in the sworn statement and returned the original after retaining a copy evidences verification — a strong fact in favour of the complainant.

3. Proof of loss / non‐production: While proof of loss is required under Section 65(c), the Court emphasised that once the trial court had accepted and returned the original after verification, the subsequent loss did not automatically bar secondary evidence — especially where non‐production is not due to complainant’s neglect.

4. Expediting NI Act trials: The High Court’s direction to expedite trial once the copy is admitted underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on swift disposal of cheque-bounce matters.

5. Drafting of applications for secondary evidence: When drafting an application under Section 63/65 in NI–Act trials, the advocate should highlight:

    Production of the original before the court (or at least its production at an       earlier stage)

    Verification by the court (endorsement, remarks in record)

    Retention of the photocopy by the court or counsel

    The reason for non‐production of original (lost, misplaced, destroyed) and evidence of non-default

    Prayer for admission of the xerox copy as secondary evidence and direction for trial to proceed.

6. Risk mitigation: If the original is returned by the trial court it is advisable for the complainant to take steps (endorsement on returned document, acknowledgment) to preserve evidence of production/verification in case of future disputes.

 When a client whose original cheque is not in their possession, you can refer to this case to show that a photocopy can be produced as secondary evidence, provided the right facts (production, verification, retention of xerox) exist.

 In drafting the complaint and hearing at the trial stage, ensure that you seek an endorsement from the court when returning the original cheque — this helps build the record for Section 63/65 reliance in future.

 If the trial court refuses admission of a xerox copy, this judgment provides strong grounds for a revision or appeal, arguing misapplication of Sections 63 & 65.

“Madras High Court (2025) in Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian: secondary evidence of cheque admissible”.

What if the original cheque is lost?” 

Title: Xerox Copy of Lost Original Cheque Can Be Admitted as Secondary Evidence in NI Act Proceedings – Madras High Court (2025 MHC 2205)

 I’m Advocate Akanksha Roy. In this post, I discuss a landmark decision of the Madras High Court which has clarified the admissibility of photocopies of original cheques as secondary evidence under cheque-bounce litigation.

The decision arises out of a cheque-bounce complaint under Sections 138 and 147 of the NI Act where the complainant had produced the original cheque, but later the original could not be located. The trial court declined to permit a xerox copy of the cheque. The High Court intervened.

The court said that the Evidence Act only admits secondary evidence of a document when the conditions of Section 63(2)/(3) and Section 65(c) are fulfilled.

In this case, the original cheque had been produced and verified by the trial court (endorsement in the sworn statement) and then returned to the complainant after retaining a xerox copy. That satisfied Section 63(2)/(3).

Thereafter the original was lost — thus meeting Section 65(c).

The trial court’s refusal to admit the xerox copy solely because there was “no evidence of loss” by the earlier advocate was legally incorrect.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the trial court to admit the xerox copy of the cheque as secondary evidence and expedite the trial.

If you are a complainant in a cheque-bounce matter and the original cheque is missing, you’re not debarred from proceeding — you may apply under Section 63/65 for admission of a photocopy.

Ensure the original was produced or verified (court endorsement) and a xerox copy retained.

Clearly narrate the reason for non-production of original, ensure it is not due to your negligence.

Leverage this judgment in your application and in oral argument before the Magistrate.

Key 

1. Primary evidence remains the original but secondary evidence is permissible in the right case.

2. Court verification of original + retention of xerox copy strengthens your position.

3. Don’t assume a missing original kills the case; use Section 63/65 strategy.

4. Draft your application citing this case for stronger persuasion.

The Madras High Court’s ruling in Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian offers a practical pathway for complainants in cheque-bounce proceedings when originals are lost. It underscores the importance of documentation, court endorsements, and timely applications under the Evidence Act.