yes

This is the position as explained in Datti Kameswari Petitioner Vs Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and another, Civil Revision Petition Nos.3031 and 3048 of 2015, OrderDate: [deleted], Citation;AIR 2016 Hyderabad 112:-

"In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified by the

designated Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act

of the private documents are not certified copies within the meaning

of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely

true copies of the private documents available in the records of the

particular Department. The production and marking of such copies

is permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of

secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the

Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of

Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true

copies obtained under the Right to Information Act. However, the

true copies of public documents certified by the designated

Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of the public

documents. "

Clause (f) of Section 65 of Evidence Act makes it crystal clear that a certified copy permitted under the Evidence Act or by any other law in force can be treated as secondary evidence. Right to Information Act, in my view, falls within the ambit of "by any other law in force in India". The definition of "right to information" makes it clear that certified copies of documents are given to the citizens under their right to obtain information

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT GWALIOR.

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

Writ Petition No. 7860/2014

Narayan Singh

Vs.

Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwaha

and others

Clause (f) of Section 65 of Evidence Act makes it crystal clear that a certified copy permitted under the Evidence Act or by any other law in force can be treated as secondary evidence. Right to Information Act, in my view, falls within the ambit of "by any other law in force in India". The definition of "right to information" makes it clear that certified copies of documents are given to the citizens under their right to obtain information. In my view, the court below has rightly opined that the documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. I do not see any merit in the contention that the documents obtained under the Act of 2005 are either true copies or attested copies. The definition aforesaid shows that the same are certified copies. Even otherwise, it is interesting to note that in Black Dictionary, the meaning of "certified copy" is as under:-

"Certified copy" - a copy of a document or record, signed or certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody original is entrusted."

Since the documents are covered under section 65 of the Evidence Act, there was no need to compare the same with the originals.

7. As analyzed above, I find no legal error in the order of the court below, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court below has taken a plausible view, which is in accordance with law. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No cost.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge Yog/

Certified copies of documents obtained under the provisions of the RTI Act are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as long as the court does not have any reason to doubt that the said certified copies are not faithful and accurate reproductions of the original documents in custody of Government Departments.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh vs. Gurdev Singh and others, 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 0738 has held that certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madamanchi Ramappa and another vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633, has held that in terms of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without further being proved by calling the witness. Such finding has been recorded on the strength of the established principles that once a document is preserved as a public document, it need not be proved like any other private document.

Narayan Singh v Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwaha & Ors. reported as 2015 (2) M.P.L.J. 337 has held that the certified copies obtained under RTI are admissable as secondary evidence. The Hon'ble High Court interpreted words "or by any other law in force in India" as appearing in section 65(f) of The Evidence Act.

A careful reading of Section 2 (j) (ii) of the ARTI act reveals that ,

the applicant can ask for certified copies of the documents or records. This certified copy of the document giving information can be admitted in the Court as Secondary Evidence. Note that under the RTI Act, the right to information includes the right to inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. A citizen has a right to obtain information from a public authority in any relevant form including in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through print-outs provided such information is already stored in a computer or in any other device from which the information may be e-mailed or transferred to diskettes etc.

The information obtained through RTI act is valid and permissible evidence before court of law.

If yes is there any order regarding my above question i.e. any order of Supreme Court or an y High court Please.

There are various orders in this regard, even otherwise legally it is valid and admissible evidence before court bcause it is an authentic information provided by government