Rules as to Notice to produce Secondary Evidence

Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 66

Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in Section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, or to his attorney or pleader, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law, and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:
Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:
(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice
(2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it
(3) When it appears or is proved that the adversary has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force
(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court
(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document
(6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.

This Section should be read along with O XI R 15 of the CPC which prescribes the kind of notice required to produce a document in civil cases. Further, Sections 94 to 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed in criminal cases and Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code says that it is an offence to for any person who is legally bound to produce a document to any public servant to intentionally omit to do so.
In Surendra Kriahnan Roy v. Mirza Mohd. Syed Ali Matwali, 1935, it was held that such notice may be dispensed with if the Court thinks that it is fit to dispense with it. However, a party was held not to be entitled to produce secondary evidence of a document which it had not required the other party (who was in possession of the original) to produce in the original in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Chandrawali, 1989.