Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given

(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 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 40[India to be given in evidence ;

(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved it 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, 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.

Secondary evidence of a document cannot be given unless:

1. The non-production of the original is accounted for so as to bring it under one of the exceptions of Section 65. (Krishna Kishori Chowdhrani v. Kirshori Lal Roy, 1887)
2. The original document is admissible.

A conjoint reading of Section 65 (b) and Section 22 of the IEA shows that the admission of a document amounts to the admission of its contents but not of its truth. (Section 22 speaks of when oral admissions regarding the contents of documents are admissible.)

If secondary evidence is sought to be given under Section 65 (c) because of the loss of the original, it must first be proved that the original has been lost. (Illustration (b) to Section 104)

A party who is in custody of the original document cannot give secondary evidence of its contents. (Hira Lal v. Ganesh Prasad, 1882)

Section 65 (d) applies to such things as tombstones, writing on a wall etc. which would be impractical to bring into a Court. It has been held in a number of cases though that this rule applies to ‘written documents’ in the strict sense of the term. It does not extend to films, tapes, etc. And, in Mertimer v. M Challan, 1840, it was held that the rule applied to books of the Bank of England as removing the originals would cause a great deal of public inconvenience.

Section 65 (e) is mainly to protect public documents from possibly damage that they may sustain from being continually produced in evidence.

Section 65 (f) can be read along with Sections 76, 78 and 86 which deal with certified copies of public documents, proof of other official documents and presumptions regarding certified copies of foreign judicial records respectively.

The object of Section 65 (g) is simply to expedite Court proceedings by saving time.

References: The Indian Evidence Act, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Evidence, Batuklal on Evidence