Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Basic Concepts of Forensic Audit

In a fraud inquiry at Kaveri Pharma Pvt. Ltd., a forensic auditor wants to rely on a photocopy of a signed supply agreement because the original is with a counterparty abroad. Under the general approach of Indian evidence law, which position is correct?

Secondary evidence like a photocopy can be admitted only when a recognised ground for not producing the original is established, for example the original being held by another party who fails to produce it. Otherwise documents are proved by primary evidence, so neither extreme view is correct.

  1. ADocuments must always be proved by the original, with no exceptions
  2. BSecondary evidence such as a copy may be allowed only if a recognised ground for not producing the original, such as it being in the possession of another party who does not produce it, is establishedCorrect
  3. CA photocopy is always as good as the original
  4. DCopies are admissible only for electronic documents

Explanation

The general rule is that documents are proved by primary evidence. Secondary evidence is allowed in specified circumstances, including when the original is held by a person who cannot be compelled or does not produce it, after proper foundation is laid. It is neither always barred nor always acceptable.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Basic Concepts of Forensic Audit shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Basic Concepts of Forensic AuditFree diagnostic mock

More Basic Concepts of Forensic Audit questions