. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Ganpat (supra) was not considering the provisions of section 63(2). In that case, the original document was in custody of respondent himself, however, he relied upon photostat copy. In these circumstances, the observations are made in para 13 that xerox copies can be manipulated. The observations of learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be treated as ratio. The said observations, therefore, will not come to the rescue of Mr. Antrukar to submit that copies produced by respondent did not answer the description given under clause (2) of section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So far as the Apex Court judgment in Ram Suresh Singh (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court held that photocopy in the absence of original is not admissible in evidence. The Apex Court held that xerox copy of the certificate issued by the Principal of Government Secondary School is not admissible in evidence inasmuch as original thereof having not been produced. The facts of the said case does not show that any application was made under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, for permission to lead secondary evidence. In the absence of such permission, xerox copy of the certificate
