The quashing petition will not stand for sure.

Mere marking of documents as Exhibits is no proof of a document and during argument one can always take the plea of its admissibility or inadmissibility.

Since prosecution took objection it can during argument can argue on the point of its admissibility.

Hi, As per law Photo copy of the documents is neither primary documents or nor secondary documents so it can't be admitted as documents in evidence.

2. As per evidence you can produce two types of documents i.e primary documents or secondary documents and not photo copies of the documents.

1) you have to produce original documents

2) photocopies would not be admissible in evidence

3) unless foundation for producing secondary evidence is laid, xerox copy is not admissible in evidence - No secondary evidence can be admitted unless notice under Section 66 to person possessing it is issued as issuance of such notice is mandatory - If no notice was given to witness to produce document in original and if no material to show that photostat copy was made from its original, order permitting party to produce said copy is not proper

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Dulichand v. Madhavlal Dube 1975(4) SCC 664, while dealing with a case under clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act, upheld the decision of the High Court Kumar Parveen 2013.11.15 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh wherein it recorded a finding that the photostat copy did not appear to be above suspicion and could not be admitted. In arriving at this finding, the High Court considered the facts that there was no other material on the record (except the affidavit of appellant himself) to indicate that the original document was in the possession of respondent No. 1, the appellant failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken; respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such document. Thus, it was held that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy.

In Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 840, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of admissibility of photocopy of a document, original whereof was in possession of third party, came to a conclusion that since, the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Act were not fulfilled, photostat copy could not be allowed to be produced as secondary evidence. The court relied on Ashok Duli Chand's case (supra) and observed as under:

"The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a Kumar Parveen 2013.11.15 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs.

v. A. Ramalingam 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 696 while dealing with Section 65 of the Act opined that though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It has been further held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a Kumar Parveen 2013.11.15 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon.

Recently in U. Sree v. U. Srinivas 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere denial by the party to produce the original document in whose possession it is stated to be does not lay down foundational facts for producing secondary evidence.

Likewise in cases falling under clause (c) of Section 65 of the Act wherein the original document is alleged to be lost or destroyed and a photostat copy is sought to be produced, the courts have cautioned against eager admissibility of such copies, specifically when it is lost or destroyed by the party in whom it created an enforceable right and who seeks to produce photostat copy of the same whereas, on the other hand, if a photostat copy is produced by a party who has no interest in manipulating it, it is generally admitted as secondary evidence.

The details provided by you is too scant to give any citations. Citations have no blanket applicability and every citation is made for the purpose of the particular case in which it was passed.