\nSection 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that documents must be proved by primary evidence (the original document) except in the cases mentioned in Section 65. Section 65 lists the circumstances in which secondary evidence may be given.
\nA) If the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable (Section 65(c)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
\nB) If the original is a private document, secondary evidence *can* only be given if one of the conditions under Section 65 (e.g., original lost, destroyed, in possession of the opponent, etc.) is satisfied. Merely being a private document does not *allow* secondary evidence; conversely, secondary evidence *cannot* be given *unless* one of the Section 65 conditions applies, even if it is a private document. This contrasts with options A, C, and D, which are specific conditions that *permit* secondary evidence.
\nC) If the original is destroyed or lost (Section 65(b)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
\nD) If the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court (Section 65(f)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
\nThe question asks when secondary evidence *cannot* be given. Options A, C, and D are situations where it *can* be given. Being a private document (B) is not, by itself, a reason to allow secondary evidence; primary evidence is mandatory unless a specific exception (like those in A, C, D, or others in 65) applies. Therefore, secondary evidence *cannot* be given simply because it’s a private document; it requires an additional condition from Section 65 to be met.
\n<\/section>\n