15.1 . Ext. 1 was not a photocopy of a certified copy. As per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) to be called a certified copy of a public document, there must be a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer having custody of the public document with his name and his official title and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal. A look at Ext. 1 will show that it is a translated copy and does not contain the statutory certificate of the public officer certifying that it was a true copy of the public document i.e. the electoral roll. Therefore, Ext. 1 was not a certified copy of the electoral roll of 1966. If it is not a certified copy then it is not secondary evidence as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act. As per Section 61 of the Evidence Act, contents of documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. Certainly, Ext. 1 was not primary evidence; as described above, it was also not secondary evidence. Therefore, contents of Ext. 1 were not proved.
