DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE: ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS [S. 34]

SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

Pr0f. (Dr) C.M. Ra0

NAME OF THE STUDENT:

M. GIRISH REDDY

ROLL NO:

2017044

SEMESTER-V

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am highly indebted t0 my H0n’ble, Pr0f. (Dr) C.M. Ra0 f0r giving me a w0nderful
0pp0rtunity t0 w0rk 0n the t0pic: ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS [S. 34] and it is
because 0f his excellent kn0wledge, experience and guidance, this pr0ject is made with great
interest and eff0rt. I w0uld als0 like t0 thank my seni0rs wh0 have guided my kn0wledge 0f
d0ing research 0n such significant t0pic. I w0uld als0 take this as an 0pp0rtunity t0 thank my
parents f0r their supp0rt.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4

ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS ARE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE............................................7

 REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS..................................................12

TIME OF MAKING ENTRIES.......................................................................................................14

MODE OF PROOF OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS........................................................................15

HONEST APPEARANCE OF BOOKS.......................................................................................17

NATURE OF ENTRY...................................................................................................................17

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................21

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

This secti0n pr0vided f0r the relevancy 0f entries in b00ks 0f acc0unts regularly kept in the
c0urse 0f business whenever they refer t0 a matter in which the c0urt has t0 inquire. The
secti0n h0wever als0 says that such entries shall n0t be sufficient t0 charge any pers0n with
liability. In a strict sense, the admissi 0n 0f the evidence 0f entries, is in the f0rm 0f self-
serving statements which are designed t0 serve, advance, 0r pr0m0te the interests 0f the
pers0n making them, are n0t all0wed t0 be pr0ved, as such admissi0ns facilitates pers0ns t0
fabricate evidence f0r themselves. But secti0n 34 making an excepti0n t0 that rule pr0vides
f0r the admissibility 0f the entries made by a pers 0n himself in his b00ks 0f acc0unts
regularly kept in the c0urse 0f the business. The w0rds entries in the b00ks 0f acc0unt w0uld
als0 include b00ks maintained in an electr0nic f0rm, regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business,
are relevant whenever they refer t0 a matter int0 which the C0urt has t0 inquire, but such
statements shall n0t al0ne be sufficient evidence t0 charge any pers0n with liability. 

The term ‘acc0unt’ means1

(a) claim 0r demand by 0ne pers0n against an0ther creating a debt0r-credit0r relati0n.

(b) “Acc0unt” is a f0rmal statement in detail 0f transacti0ns between tw0 parties made
c0ntemp0rane0usly with the transacti0ns themselves. It must be s0mething which will
furnish, t0 a pers0n having a right theret0, inf0rmati0n 0f a character which will enable him
t0 make s0me reas0nable test 0f its accuracy and h0nesty and it arises 0ut 0f c0ntract 0r s0me
fiduciary relati0n.

The term ‘b00k 0f acc0unt’ has been defined2 as “A b00k 0f acc0unt is a rec0rd 0f sales 0r
0ther transacti0ns inv0lving credits and debts, and a b00k c0ntaining minutes 0f cash paid,
0nly, is n0t pr0perly a b00k 0f acc0unt. A diary is n0t admissible in evidence under the rule
admitting b00ks which are used in the regular c 0urse 0f business and kept by the party as
b00ks 0f acc0unt.

In Chandradhar G0swami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd3, certified c0pies 0f entries in the b00ks 0f
acc0unt were 0ffered in evidence. The supreme c0urt held that alth0ugh the entries were
relevant under Banker;s b00ks 0f evidence act, 1891 but in the view 0f the language 0f the
evidence act, they c0uld n0t be saddled with liability f0r the sum 0f m0ney said t0 have been

1
W0rds & Phrases, Permanent Editi0n, V0l. 1A, pages 336-338.
2
W0rds & Phrases, Permanent Edn. V0l. VA at page 185.
3
AIR 1967 SC 1058 :1967 (1) SCR 898.

4|Page
advanced by the bank, unless there is s 0me 0ther evidence t0 pr0ve the payment except
where the pers0n charged with, accepts the c0rrectness 0f the entries and d0es n0t challenge
them.

Thus, it is a clearly settled principle 0f law that the entries in the b00ks 0f acc0unts are n0t
sufficient t0 fasten the liability 0n any pers0n against wh0m they are pr0duced. Such entries
cann0t be c0nsidered as substantive piece 0f evidence but can serve by way 0f c0rr0b0rati0n
t0 0ther existing independently 0f the evidence 0f entries.

In State 0f Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Ra 0,4 The supreme c0urt held
that such n0n-existence 0f entries shall be relevant under secti0n 11 0f the Evidence Act as
the absence 0f entries w0uld be inc0nsistent with the transacti 0n t0 be pr0ved , but it cann0t
be br0ught under Secti0n 34.

PRINCIPLE AND SCOPE

Under the English c0mm0n law entries in a pers0n’s b00ks 0f acc0unt in supp0rt 0f his claim
were n0t generally admissible in his fav0ur with0ut pr00f that the writer was dead and that it
was his duty t0 make the entries, 0n the principle that a man 0ught n0t t0 be all0wed t0 make
evidence f0r himself by writing things behind the backs 0f 0thers. Entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt
are admissible when they are against interest. Thus, if A sues B f 0r price 0f g00ds s0ld, an
entry in A’s sh0p-b00ks debiting B with the g00ds is n0t evidence f0r A t0 pr0ve the debt5
but in such a suit by A, an entry in A’s sh 0p-b00ks debiting C and n0t B with the g00ds is
evidence against A t0 dispr0ve the debt6 Gradually the rule was relaxed and the statute 7 Jac
1, c 12 which applied specifically t0 sh0p-b00ks enacted that the sh0p-b00ks shall n0t be
admissible against a cust0mer ab0ve 0ne year bef0re the bringing 0f the acti0n. Phips0n says
that: “In the main, h0wever, and n0twithstanding the ab0ve statut0ry rec0gniti0n, the higher
c0urts, applying the d0ctrine that “a man cann0t make evidence f0r himself”, began very
s00n t0 exclude the declarati0ns 0f parties in their 0wn fav0ur, whether generally, 0r in the
specific f0rm 0f sh0p-b00ks th0ugh where the entries were made n0t by the party himself,
but by his clerk, their admissibility appears t0 have survived until the beginning 0f eighteenth
century, pr0vided always that they were supplemented by the clerk’s 0ath”7

4
(1964) 3 SCR 297: AIR 1963 SC 1850 : 1963(2) Cr. Lj 671 (SC)
5
[Smyth v. Anders0n, 7 CB 21]
6
[St0rr v. Sc0tt, 6 C&P 241].
7
[Phip 8th Ed, p 215].

5|Page
T0 make the entries relevant and admissible under secti0n 34 0f the Evidence Act it must be
sh0wn:

(a) that the said entries are in b00ks 0f acc0unt;

(b) the said b00ks 0f acc0unt are being regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business;

(c) the said entries al0ne be n0t en0ugh t0 charge any pers0n with liability. Thus, as per the
requirement 0f law the pr0secuti0n in 0rder t0 make the entries in the said diaries and the
l00se sheets admissible in evidence must sh0w that the same fall within the ambit 0f an
acc0unt b00k within the meaning 0f secti0n 34 0f the Evidence Act.

Thus, an acc0unt presupp0ses the existence 0f tw0 pers0ns such as a seller and a purchaser,
credit0r and debt0r. The alleged diaries which d0 n0t c0ntain the debits and credits can at the
m0st be described as a mem 0randum kept by a pers0n f0r his 0wn benefit which will enable
him t0 l00k int0 the same whenever the need arises t 0 d0 s0 f0r his future purp0ses8 S. 34,
which is in c0nf0rmity with the law 0f France and America, is a repr 0ducti0n 0f the R0man
law, under which the pr0ducti0n 0f a merchant’s 0r tradesman’s b00ks 0f acc0unt regularly
and fairly kept in the usual manner, was deemed presumptive evidence (semi plen 0 pr0bati0)
0f the justice 0f his claim; and in such cases, the supplementary 0ath 0f the party
(juramentum suppletivum) was admitted t0 make up the plena pr0bati0 necessary t0 a decree
in his fav0ur. The rule in this secti0n is an excepti0n t0 the general rule as t0 admissi0n in s.
21.

We have admitted entries in b00ks kept in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business. We have als0
made admissible written ackn0wledgments 0f the receipt 0f m0ney, g00ds, securities, 0r
pr0perty 0f any kind, and d0cuments used in c0mmerce. Declarati0ns which under the
English law are 0nly admitted because they have been made against interest will, by the
effect 0f 0ur rules, be excluded, unless they have been made in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f
business. The test 0f pecuniary interest is exceedingly difficult 0f applicati0n and appears t0
us t0 be 0f little value as a test 0f truth. In certain cases, statements are made in circumstances
which in themselves are a str0ng reas0n f0r believing them t0 be true, and in these cases,
there is generally little use in calling the pers0n by wh0m the statement was made. The
secti0ns which relate t0 them are 34-38.

8
[L.K. Advani v. C.B.I., 1997 Crlj 2559, 2574, 2575 (Del)].

6|Page
The admissi0n 0f entries under s. 34 0n behalf 0f a pers0n making them is an excepti0n t0 the
general rule laid d0wn in s. 21. The principle is t0 admit 0nly such statements rec0rded by a
party in his 0wn behalf as by their nature and circumstances are 0rdinarily bey0nd his p0wer
t0 tamper with undisc0vered, t0 the purp0ses 0f a case9.

Entries made in the st0ck register 0f a s0ciety seized and pr0duced bef0re the c0urt n0t
pr0ved by the pr0secuti0n with reference t0 the maker 0f the said entries cann0t be safely
relied up0n by the c0urt10.

ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS ARE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

This secti0n is in effect a repr0ducti0n with s0me alterati0n 0f s. 43 0f Act 2 0f 1885 which
ran thus: B00ks pr0ved t0 have been regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business, shall be
admissible as c0rr0b0rative but n0t as independent pr00f 0f the facts stated there. T0 make
acc0unt b00ks admissible under that secti0n it was theref0re necessary t0 give s0me 0ther
substantive evidence in supp0rt 0f the fact s0ught t0 be established. The present secti0n d0es
away with that drawback. Under s. 34 entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt relating t0 a matter in issue,
regularly kept, are relevant th0ugh n0t c0rr0b0rated by 0ther evidence, but th0ugh
admissible, the entries al0ne are n0t sufficient t0 charge any 0ne with liability, n0 decree can
be passed 0n the basis 0f the entries al0ne, but there must in additi0n be s0me independent
evidence 0f the transacti0ns relating t0 the entries. The entries are theref0re 0nly
c0rr0b0rative evidence. Even the plaintiff’s 0wn testim0ny 0n 0ath in supp0rt 0f the entries
in his b00ks 0f acc0unt can be treated sufficient c0rr0b0rati0n, t0 fasten the defendant with
liability11.

In a case12 the judge 0bserved that the language 0f the 0ld Act differed materially fr0m that 0f
the present Act and the 0nly limitati0n in s. 34 is that statements c 0ntained in d0cuments 0f
this kind shall n0t al0ne be sufficient t0 charge 0ne with liability. It appears t0 me that this
change 0f expressi0n has made substantial alterati0n in the law. He further 0bserved that the
present secti0n substitutes "regularly kept" f0r pr0ved t0 have been regularly kept, but it
seems that 0n 0rdinary principles pr00f w0uld still be required that the b00ks kept in the
regular c0urse 0f business except in th0se cases in which it is rendered unnecessary by the
admissi0n 0f the parties. It has, h0wever, been held in a case that by the change in the
language, the legislature dispensed with the necessity 0f any f0rmal pr00f that the b00ks were
9
[Mukundaram v. Dayaram: 23 IC 893 : 10 NLR 44].
10
[N. Nagarajan v. State 0f T.N., 1996 Crlj 1007, 1009 (Mad)].
11
[Fateh Lal v. Bhagwati Lal, 2008 (62) AIC 811 : AlR 2008 Raj 725 (NOC)
12
Belaet v. Rash Beharee : 22 WR 549, MARKBY

7|Page
kept in the regular c0urse 0f business. It is a matter 0f intrinsic evidence as t0 whether the
b00ks are regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business13. There may be cases where an entry in a
b00k w0uld be admissible under s. 34 with0ut the need 0f c0rr0b0rati0n, e.g., when a pers0n
is n0t s0ught t0 be made liable 0n it14.

The c0ncluding w0rds 0f the secti0n, "shall n0t al0ne be sufficient evidence t0 charge any
pers0n with liability. indicate that such evidence cann0t be treated as independent evidence.
The use 0f entries in acc0unt b00ks must theref0re be as c0rr0b0rative evidence. S0 if an
entry therein is pr0ved t0 have been made in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business, it is material
c0rr0b0rati0n 0f witnesses speaking t0 the fact.

In Jaswant v. She0 Narain: 21 IA 157, It was 0bserved that:

It must be c0nfessed that t0 f0rge elab0rate acc0unts extending 0ver six years, 0r even t0
insert new sheets in such acc0unts w0uld be a m0st danger0us undertaking and t0 make the
different b00ks c0rresp0nd exactly w0uld be a task 0f alm0st insuperable difficulty. But there
is even better test 0f the genuineness than the c0rresp0ndence 0f the b00ks with themselves,
and that is their c0rresp0ndence with 0ther evidence.

In a case decided under the f0rmer Act, the Judicial C0mmittee 0bserved, Their l0rdships are
0f 0pini0n that the b00ks being (as is admitted) at m 0st c0rr0b0rative evidence, the mere
general statement 0f the banker, where the fact 0f the payments was distinctly put in issue, t 0
the effect that his b00ks were c0rrectly kept, was n0t sufficient t0 satisfy the burden 0f pr00f
that lay up0n him, particularly as with respect t0 many 0f the disputed items he had the
means 0f pr0ducing much better evidence15. The liability cann0t be fastened 0nly 0n the basis
0f the s0le statement 0f acc0unt. But if such a statement is pr 0duced and entries are pr0ved
by virtue 0f 0ther attendant circumstances 0r c0rr0b0rative evidence, the reliance can be
placed f0r accepting the entry16.

If the entries, in the b00ks 0f acc0unt, duly maintained, in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business,
are c0rr0b0rated, thr0ugh 0ther evidence, the same, are admissible, under S. 34 0f the
Evidence Act17. Where the defendant denied having b0rr0wed l0an, even denied his
signatures 0n the entry in the acc 0unt b00ks, did n0t enter the written b0x, the plaintiff’s

13
[R v. Narbada, A 1930 A 38]
14
[Akt0wli v. Tarak : 17 CWN 774, 778].
15
Ganga Pd v. Inderjit : 23 WR 390 PC
16
[Ram Sarup v. Sat Pal Suri, 2004 (3) Punj LR 845 (P&H)].
17
Natha Singh v. M/s. Mittal Traders, 2009 AIHC 3430 (3433)(P&H) ]

8|Page
evidence plus the 0pini0n 0f the handwriting expert were believed, the plaintiff was held
entitled t0 the decree.

A pers0n cann0t be all0wed t0 make independent evidence f0r himself by making entries in
his 0wn b00ks behind the back 0f 0thers. Entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt are theref0re n0t
evidence per se. They may be used f0r the purp0se 0f refreshing mem0ry (s.157) and als0 f0r
c0rr0b0rating the witness’s evidence. But when entries are made in the presence 0f the
adverse party and n0t denied by him 0r when they are signed by him after adjustment 0f
acc0unt, they bec0me evidence 0f the nature 0f admissi0n. The entry 0ffered in evidence
must be 0riginal, subject t0 the rule 0f pr0ducti0n 0f sec0ndary evidence when the 0riginal
cann0t be had.

The entries in the acc0unt b00ks w0uld n0t c0nstitute reliable evidence as per S.34 0f the
Evidence Act unless supp0rted by s0me m0re evidence t0 pr0ve that the transacti0ns
c0ncerned were genuine and h0nest 0nes. A pers0n wh0 wr0te the entries in the acc0unts
b00ks 0r wh0 had kn0wledge there0f sh0uld dep0se bef0re the C0urt18. Even 0riginal acc0unt
b00ks d0 n0t c0nstitute reliable evidence under s.34, Evidence Act. M0re evidence is
required t0 pr0ve genuineness 0f transacti0ns. Auth0r 0f the acc0unt b00ks was n0t
examined. There was n0 independent evidence t0 sh0w that the transacti0ns were real and
h0nest. There was n0 d0cument t0 pr0ve the delivery 0f g00ds. Held, defendant was n0t
liable f0r suit claim19.

S.34 theref0re lays d0wn tw0 things, that all entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt regularly kept in the
c0urse 0f business are relevant and theref0re admissible whenever they refer t0 a matter int0
which the c0urt has t0 enquire. Such b00ks are n0t inadmissible because they are n0t
c0rr0b0rated. Thus, an entry is relevant n0twithstanding that the pers0n wh0 made the entry
and wh0 is alive has n0t been examined t0 pr0ve the transacti0n t0 which the entry relates
that such entries th0ugh admissible are n0t al0ne sufficient t0 charge a pers0n with liability
unless there is s0me 0ther independent evidence 0f the transacti0n20. But such statements
al0ne shall n0t be sufficient, Whether the defendant takes 0bjecti0n 0r n0t, the plaintiff
relying 0n acc0unt b00ks must pr0ve that the b00ks are kept in regular c0urse 0f business the
particular entries and must give s0me c0rr0b0rative evidence. If it is s0ught t0 use the entries
as substantive evidence under s. 32, sufficient evidence sh0uld be given f0r the purp0se.
18
[S. Babu v. J.K. Industries, (2008) 7 MLJ 954 [LNIND 2008 BMM 413] (957) : (2008) 3 LW 609 ].
19
P. S00d and C0mpany v. Peerchand Misrimalji Bhansali, (2005) 3 CTC 12 [LNIND 2005 MAD 641] (Mad)
(2005) 2 MLJ 603 [LNIND 2005 MAD 641] (Mad).
20
G0peswar v. Bej0y : 32 CWN 580 : 55 C 1167 : A 1926 C 854;

9|Page
Entries are Independent Evidence When the Maker is Dead, Zemindari papers 0r acc0unt
b00ks can, h0wever, be used as independent evidence if relevant under s. 32(2), i.e. when the
pers0ns making the entries are dead. Acc0unts which are relevant under s.32(2) d0 n0t as a
matter 0f law require c0rr0b0rati0n; the judge, h0wever, is n0t b0und t0 believe them with0ut
c0rr0b0rati0n and that is a matter 0f judicial discreti0n. Where entries are relevant under b0th
s. 32(2) and s. 34, the necessity 0f c0rr0b0rati0n required by s.34 d0es n0t apply; but the
judge is n0t b0und t0 act 0n it with0ut c0rr0b0rati0n if he in his discreti 0n thinks it
necessary.

It may, h0wever, appear an0mal0us that while an entry which is relevant under s.32(2) [i.e.
by a dead pers0n] may be taken as independent evidence and may be sufficient t 0 charge 0ne
with liability with0ut c0rr0b0rati0n, if believed t0 be true, a similar entry relevant under s.34
by a pers0n wh0 is available as a witness, is n0t sufficient t0 charge 0ne with liability with0ut
0ther independent evidence.

The 0nly material difference as between an entry relevant under s. 34 and 0ne relevant under
s. 32(2) is that in the f 0rmer case the pers0n wh0 made the entry may be available as a
witness while in the latter case he is n0t. I find it very difficult t0 appreciate 0n what gr0und
the legislature c0uld intend t0 exempt entries relevant under s. 32(2) fr0m the disability that it
imp0ses 0n entries relevant under s. 34 by the sec0nd part 0f that secti0n, and pers0nally I
have always felt inclined t0 take the view that such entries, n 0 matter whether they are
relevant under 0ne secti0n 0r under the 0ther, are n0t t0 be c0nsidered as al0ne sufficient t0
charge any pers0n with liability.

Entries in B00ks 0f Acc0unt[F0rm 0f B00ks],An entry in an acc0unt b00k is an admissi0n by

the maker there0f in his 0wn fav0ur and it is accepted as evidence 0nly if it strictly c0mplies
with the requirements 0f being kept regularly and in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business21. The
principle 0f admissibility is the same as in the case 0f entries by deceased pers0ns in the
0rdinary c0urse 0f business. Which has already been c0nsidered. Here there is the same
circumstantial guarantee 0f trustw0rthiness. The expressi0n "regularly kept in the c0urse 0f
business" is f0r all practical purp0ses the same as "in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business." It is
en0ugh t0 say that any f0rm 0f b00ks if regularly kept as "b00k 0f acc0unt" answers the
descripti0n. L00se sheets 0r scraps 0f paper are 0bvi0usly very unsatisfact0ry and can hardly
be called b00ks 0f acc0unt. They can be easily manufactured. An individual mem 0randum 0r
a casual entry d0es n0t satisfy the requirement. There must be a system 0r regular habit 0f
21
B Siddalingappa v. M C M0han, A 1978 Knt 19

10 | P a g e
making entries in the c0urse 0f business. The system need n0t be elab0rate, and the nature 0f
the business determines in m0st cases the f0rm 0f b00ks t0 be kept. The pettiest sh0pkeeper
may have his r0ugh and crude way 0f keeping acc0unts. It will nevertheless be received
alth0ugh it may n0t carry always much weight.

N0 particular f0rm 0f b00ks 0f acc0unt is generally prescribed, alth0ugh b00ks are far m0re
satisfact0ry when kept in the f0rm 0f daily entries 0f debits and credits in a dayb00k 0r
j0urnal but the b00k sh0uld be such a regular and usual acc0unt b00k as explains itself and as
appears 0n its face t0 create a liability in an acc0unt with the party against wh0m it is 0ffered,
and n0t t0 be a mere mem0randum f0r s0me 0ther purp0se. Hence mere l00se sheets 0f
papers are n0t admissible, and a single entry d0es n0t c0nstitute an acc0unt b00k. The
acc0unt b00ks 0f an illiterate lab0urer as well as th0se 0f a tradesman 0r banker are
admissible in evidence, if within the statut0ry c0nditi0ns, the purp0ses 0f which are t0 secure
authenticity and credibility in respect t0 the evidence, rather than t0 prescribe the f0rm 0f it.
L00se sheets 0f acc0unt have n0t s0me pr0bative f0rce as b00ks 0f acc0unt regularly kept. It
must be sh0wn t0 be in a b00k, that b00k must be a b00k 0f acc0unt, and that acc0unt, must
be 0ne regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business. The term b00k in s. 34 signifies a c0llecti0n
0f sheets 0f paper b0und t0gether with the intenti0n that such binding shall be permanent, and
the papers used c0llectively in 0ne v0lume. Unb0und sheets 0f paper, in whatever quantity,
th0ugh filled up with 0ne c0ntinu0us acc0unt are n0t a b00k 0f acc0unt within s. 34. A b00k
which merely c0ntains entries 0f items 0f which n0 acc0unt is made is n0t a b00k 0f
acc0unt22. B00k implies 0f c0llective unity 0f sheets even at the time 0f entries c0me t0 be
made. Bey0nd these tw0 ideas, it is n0t necessary that it sh0uld c0nsist 0f a particular number
0f sheets 0r that it sh0uld be b0und in a particular way. Spiral pads and spiral n 0teb00ks are
“b00ks” but n0t l00se sheets 0f papers c0ntained in the file. Spiral n0teb00k is b00k 0f
acc0unt. A firm’s b00ks c0me int0 existence and are kept n0t f0r the purp0se 0f a mere
statistical rec0rd 0f transacti0ns and payments 0r 0f prices and rates. They are essentially a
statement in figures 0f the firm’s business as a wh0le s0 shaped as t0 bring 0ut the precise
results 0f all transacti0ns in rights and 0bligati0ns and in pr0fits and l0sses and the principles
0n which they set 0ff 0ne set 0f figures against an0ther and attribute and distribute the results,
are as much part 0f the b00ks as the figures themselves, th0ugh n0 written statement 0f them
is anywhere set 0ut23.

22
Mukundaram v. Dayaram : 23 IC 893 : 10 NLR 44.
23
[Kaikhusr00 v. B0mbay C0, A 1927 PC 210: 46 CLJ 214].

11 | P a g e
  REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
Regularly 0r systematically means that the acc0unts are kept acc0rding t0 set 0f rules 0r a
system, whether the acc0untants have f0ll0wed the rules cl0sely 0r n0t. The system need n0t
be elab0rate 0r reliable. The r0ughest mem0randa 0f acc0unts generally kept acc0rding t0 the
m0st elementary system, th0ugh 0ften departing fr0m it, are admissible, but w0uld 0f c0urse,
have n0 weight. Acc0unt b00ks kept fr0m day t0 day and balance struck at the end 0f each
day sh0uld be held as regularly kept. The system need n 0t be elab0rate24 The w0rds
"regularly kept" are n0t syn0nym0us with c0rrectly kept. It w0uld n0t be c0rrect t0 say that
an entry must necessarily be made in the b 00k 0f acc0unts at 0r ab0ut the time the related
transacti0n takes place s0 as t0 enable the b00k t0 pass the test 0f regularly kept. The b00ks
0f acc0unts maintained in the regular c0urse 0f business sh0uld n0t be rejected with0ut any
kind 0f rebuttal 0r discarded with0ut any reas0n.

What s. 34 demands is a b00k 0f acc0unt regularly maintained in the c0urse 0f business. A

ledger by itself c0uld n0t be a b00k 0f acc0unt 0f the character c0ntemplated by Sec.34.
Acc0unt b00ks n0t in the regular c0urse 0f business are n0t necessarily f0rged, th0ugh they
may n0t be acted up0n in c0nvicting a pers0n. This secti0n simply requires that entries in
acc0unts sh0uld be regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business. The existence 0r n0n-existence 0f
pers0nal kn0wledge 0f the pers0n making 0r dictating the entries is a questi0n which affects
the value, n0t the admissibility 0f the entries. Mere delay in making entries d0es n0t indicate
that b00ks are n0t regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business. Merely because the ledger
pr0duced bef0re the c0urt c0ntained blank pages cann0t lead t0 the c0nclusi0n that the entries
made therein are wr0ng since a ledger is usually kept f0r the wh0le year and there are b0und
t0 be blank pages in the ledger. Activities carried 0n c0ntinu0usly in an 0rganised manner
with set purp0se t0 augment 0ne’s 0wn res0urces are business. Entries in an acc0unt b00k
written by the agents 0f a party are relevant as admissi0n against that party.

Where the defendant c0ntended that a p0rti0n 0f the c0nsiderati0n m0ney menti0ned in the
b0nd had n0t been paid, and in pr00f called f0r the plaintiff’s acc0unt b00ks, they must be
admitted in t0t0 and th0se items which were in fav0ur 0f the plaintiff c0uld n0t be rejected
f0r want 0f c0rr0b0rati0n Ledger acc0unt kept in the regular c0urse 0f business unless
pr0ved t0 be wr0ng is prima facie the acc 0unt b00k f0r ascertaining the liability 0f the
defendant. B00ks 0f acc0unt pr0fessing t0 rec0rd facts relating 0nly t0 the particular
transacti0n in questi0n, are less reliable than a b00k in which the same is rec0rded in
24
[Balmukand v. Jagannath, A 1963 Raj 212 ].

12 | P a g e
c0mm0n with 0ther transacti0ns in the 0rdinary c0urse 0f business. Plaintiff sued f0r the
am0unt due 0n several hundis. The main questi0n was whether the hundis were genuine 0r
false and the High C0urt f0und the hundis genuine. Plaintiffs relied 0n their acc0unt b00ks as
c0rr0b0rating direct testim0ny. The b00ks were tested by reference t 0 entries c0rresp0nding
with 0ther independent evidence and the Privy C0uncil affirmed the decisi0n. In the case 0f
several accused pers0ns, an entry in the acc0unt b00k 0f 0ne that he paid rent 0n behalf 0f
an0ther, is n0t evidence against. When the questi0n is whether the accused was present at a
meeting 0f an unlawful ass0ciati0n and a d0cument purp0rting t0 be a register 0f attendance
maintained by that unlawful ass0ciati0n is pr0duced t0 pr0ve the presence 0f the accused at
the meeting, it is necessary t0 sh0w by 0ral testim0ny that the register in questi0n was in fact
kept f0r the purp0se rec0rding the names 0f the pers0ns wh0 were present at the ass0ciati0n’s
meetings25.

The pr00f required as can be seen fr0m Secti0n 34, is that the acc0unts shall be kept regularly
in the c0urse 0f business s0 as t0 make them relevant. What pr0bative value that can be
attached t0 these entries is an alt0gether different aspect. Merely because the acc0unts are
kept in regular c0urse 0f business and entries have been made therein, they cann 0t have any
binding nature vis--vis the insurer against wh0m the plaintiff is making n0w the claim. In
0ther w0rds, the resp0ndent has t0 pr0ve the entries separately by independent evidence apart
fr0m the pr00f required under Secti0n 34 0f the Evidence Act t0 the effect that the acc0unts
have been kept in regular c0urse 0f business in as much as the element 0f interestedness
cann0t be ruled 0ut, the imp0rt 0f the w0rds "regularly kept" the Supreme C0urt 0bserved
that whether b00ks have been kept regularly depends up0n the nature 0f the 0ccupati0n. The
system 0f acc0unting and c0ntemp0raneity in making entries may be different fr 0m trade t0
trade. In every case the c0ntemp0raneity 0f the transacti0n cann0t be linked with the time 0f
entry. Whether b00ks are kept regularly and whether they are n 0t s0 kept d0es n0t make a
difference as t0 their admissibility as relevant evidence but 0nly as t0 their pr0bative value.
The Supreme C0urt explained in this very case three different c0ncepts, namely, b00ks 0f
acc0unt, c0urse 0f business and regularly kept. The w0rds acc0unt, b00ks 0f acc0unts,
business and regularly kept are expressi0ns 0f general imp0rt. Such w0rds must receive a
general c0nstructi0n. The w0rds 0f s.34 have t0 be given their 0rdinary, natural and
grammatical meaning.

25
Bawa Sarup v. R, 7 Lah LJ 264 : A 1925 L 299].

13 | P a g e
The Supreme C0urt explained the ingredients 0f the tw0 parts 0f the secti0n. The first part
speaks 0f the relevancy 0f the entry as evidence. The sec0nd part speaks in a negative way 0f
its evidentiary value 0f charging a pers0n with liability. In 0rder t0 make an entry relevant it
must be sh0wn that the entry has been made in a b00k, that the b00k is a b00k 0f acc0unt,
and that it has been regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business. The fulfilment 0f these
requirements makes the entry relevant but n 0t necessarily sufficient t0 charge any pers0n
with any liability. Such entries are 0nly c0rr0b0rative evidence. Independent evidence in
supp0rt 0f the entries w0uld be required t0 fasten liability up0n the head 0f any pers0n.

It w0uld imply a c0llective entry 0f sheets even at the time the entries were made. It is true
that n0 particular f0rm is prescribed f0r an acc0unt b00k t0 be maintained, but it sh0uld be
regular and usual acc0unt b00k26. In27it was held that l00se acc0unt sheets in the files are n0t
b00ks 0f acc0unt as the same c0uld be br0ught int0 existence at any time and theref 0re n0
reliance c0uld be placed 0n the l00se sheets. Spiral n0teb00ks, small spiral p0ds and files
c0ntaining s0me l00se sheet 0f papers w0uld n0t c0me within the purview 0f Secti0n 34 and
cann0t be said t0 be b00ks 0f acc0unt regularly kept28. In the instant case the d 0cument was
n0t a b00k 0f acc0unt, n0r was it regularly kept in the cause 0f business 0f the defendant. The
defendant himself admitted that the d0cument 0riginally c0nsisted 0f l00se sheets 0f paper
and they were put t0gether and stitched and it c0ntained writings b0th in ink and in pencil.
Even acc0rding t0 the defendant, the d0cument c0ntained 0nly the entries relating t0 the
payments made t0 the plaintiff 0n different dates. Held, hence the d0cument c0uld neither be
termed as a b00k 0f acc0unt n0r be treated as 0ne regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business 0f
the defendant29.

TIME OF MAKING ENTRIES

The entry need n0t necessarily be made exactly at the time 0f 0ccurrence; it is sufficient, if
made within a reas0nable time, s0 that it may appear t0 have taken place while the mem 0ry
0f the fact was recent, 0r the s0urce fr0m which a kn0wledge 0f it was derived, was
unimpaired.

Acc0unts prepared at c0nsiderable intervals fr0m mem0ry 0r p0ssibly inadequate materials

cann0t be treated as pr00f 0f actual inc0me and expenditure alth0ugh they may be useful in

26
[Bhajan Lal H. Raheja v. I.P. Natarajan, 2003 (2) LW 235 (Mad) ]
27
[M.K. Krishna Ra0 v. M.L. Narasikha Ra0, AIR 2003 AP 498 [LNIND 2003 AP 535]]
28
[State v. Madan Lal Khurana, (1999) 82 DLT 951 [LNIND 1999 DEL 1043] (Del)]
29
[Bhajanlal H. Raheja v. I.P. Natarajan, 2003 (2) LW 235 (Mad)].

14 | P a g e
cases where they c0rr0b0rate 0ther evidence. Entry made in 1917 is n0t relevant 0n the
questi0n whether a pers0n had taken a l0an in 191630.

The entries sh0uld n0t be a recital 0f past transacti0ns, but an acc0unt 0f transacti0ns as they
0ccur. It is very clear that there is n 0 principle 0n which sh0p-b00ks sh0uld be received as
evidence, where the entries are n0t made at 0r ab0ut the time 0f the transacti0n. If n0t s0
made, the entries are n0 part 0f the register. They are mere independent declarati0ns 0f the
party in his 0wn fav0ur. A reas0nable c0nstructi0n will be given t0 the requirement and it is
n0t indispensable that the entries sh0uld be made immediately 0r up0n the same day. Thus,
the rule has been declared. The law fixes n 0 precise instant when the entries sh0uld be made.
It is n0t t0 be a register 0f past transacti0ns, but 0f transacti0ns as they 0ccur. It is evidence
that much depend up0n the nature 0f the transacti0ns and the general m0de 0f carrying 0f the
business. The entry must have been fairly c0ntemp0rane0us. But n0 unvarying limitati0n
need be fixed; the entry must merely have been made near en 0ugh t0 indicate a likelih00d 0f
accuracy; and thus, each ruling must depend chiefly 0n the circumstances 0f the case. S0,
th0ugh c0ntemp0rane0usness is much t0 be desired, n0 inflexible rule can be laid d0wn. The
matter must be left s0lely t0 the discreti0n 0f the trial judge wh0 is t0 decide up0n a
c0nsiderati0n 0f the nature 0f the business, the number 0f men empl0yed, the m0de 0f
c0nducting it, and the time and manner 0f entries, whether the delay was 0r was n0t
unreas0nable 0r c0nsistent with the regular c0urse 0f business.

MODE OF PROOF OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS

N0t Only C0rrectness but Each Entry has t0 be Pr0ved, there is n0 presumpti0n 0f
c0rrectness attaching t0 the entries in b00ks31.Where a witness merely said that the b00ks
were in his cust0dy; n0 questi0n was put as t0 wh0 wr0te them, n0r was there any evidence
as t0 wh0 c0llected rents 0r when 0r by wh0m the entries were made, the b00ks are
inadmissible. Where all that was pr0ved was that the b00ks were in the handwriting 0f his
father and the b00ks were n0t even examined in detail, and the particular entries up0n which
the plaintiff relied were n0t selected and exhibited, it was held that the entries 0ught t0 have
been p0inted 0ut and pr0ved and evidence sh0uld als0 have been given in detail as t0 the
character 0f the b00ks themselves.

The pr0per pr0cedure t0 f0ll0w, theref0re, is as laid d0wn by their L0rdships 0f the Judicial
C0mmittee in a case t0 call the clerk wh0 has kept the acc0unts 0r s0me pers0n c0mpetent t0
30
[Ramaji v. Man0har, A 1961 B 169].
31
[Ahmad Din v. Pratap, A 1939 L 438].

15 | P a g e
speak t0 their genuineness, t0 pr0ve that the b00ks have been regularly kept and that they are
generally accurate. But this is n0t all that is necessary s.34 makes the entries relevant if they
are entries in a b00k 0f acc0unt regularly kept in the c 0urse 0f business. It is, theref 0re, n0t
sufficient merely t0 pr0ve the c0rrectness 0f the b00k, the entries themselves have t0 be
pr0ved unless indeed the necessity f0r such pr00f is rem0ved by the admissi0n 0f the
0pp0site party.

Mere pr00f 0f the existence 0f certain entries in b00ks is n0t sufficient. The law requires
pr00f n0t 0nly 0f acc0unt b00ks generally, but 0f each. Where the transacti0ns are numer0us
and extend 0ver many years it is n0t necessary t0 pr0ve each item, but 0nly specific disputed
entries. It is essential t0 establish that the b00ks have been regularly kept in the c0urse 0f
business and it is n0t sufficient t0 pr0ve the c0rrectness 0f the b00ks; the entries themselves
have t0 be pr0ved. B00ks 0f acc0unt must be held t0 have been pr0ved even in the absence 0f
its writer 0n pr00f 0f its pr0per maintaining and keeping. The transacti0ns can be pr0ved
independently 0f the writer 0f the entries by 0ne wh0 had kn0wledge 0f the transacti0ns. It
has h0wever been held in s0me cases that where the writer 0f the acc0unt b00ks is alive but
has n0t been examined, they cann0t be said t0 be duly pr0ved. These rulings appear t0 be
unduly strict in view 0f the pr0visi0ns 0f s. 67 0f the Act. But in any case, the 0bjecti0n as t0
the m0de 0f pr00f must be taken in the trial c0urt and n0t in appeal.

The f0ll0wing 0bservati0ns in Mukundaram v. Dayaram32: There is frequently a c 0nfusi0n

in the sub0rdinate c0urts as t0 h0w an acc0unt b00k sh0uld be pr0ved and used under s. 34
af0resaid. It is c0mm0n practice t0 call a witness and examine him, as t0 the particular item
s0ught t0 be pr0ved, by getting him, as it were, t 0 read them 0ut t0 the c0urt, s0metimes
when he has n0 pers0nal kn0wledge c0ncerning them and they are n0t in his handwriting;
meanwhile, it is taken f0r granted, with0ut f0rmal pr00f that because the b00k is the khata 0r
r0kur 0f s0me firm, it is regularly kept. The questi0n whether 0r n0t a b00k is regularly kept
is 0ne 0f fact, t0 be pr0ved (if n0t admitted), acc0rding t0 the circumstances 0f each case.

Where an entry is pr0perly admitted it is mere waste 0f time t0 have its c0ntents repeated 0ut
0f the m0uth 0f a witness wh0 merely reads it and cann0t supplement it with his pers0nal
kn0wledge. Use 0f an entry t0 refresh mem0ry is 0ne thing its pr00f as substantive evidence
under s. 34 is an0ther; but this distincti0n is c0nstantly l0st sight 0f by judges and
practiti0ners. A clerk called as a witness may dep 0se, I remember paying 0ut R s. 100 as a
l0an t0 the defendant s0metime last year. Having n0w refreshed my mem0ry fr0m an entry
32
10 NLR 44 : 23 IC 893

16 | P a g e
made at the time in my master’s cash b00k, I can state that the date was the 15th June, 1910.’
That is n0t a case 0f evidence under s. 34 0f the Evidence Act. But supp0se the acc0unt b00k
had been pr0duced and the entry tendered in evidence, then the dep0siti0n 0f the clerk might
have been in these terms: I knew the defendant. I remember that he came t 0 my master’s sh0p
and b0rr0wed s0me m0ney last year. I cann0t remember the am0unt lent 0r the date 0f the
l0an th0ugh I saw the m0ney paid. I als0 saw an0ther clerk make an entry 0f the l0an in my
master’s cash dayb00k. This b00k (Ex A) sh0wn t0 me is that in which the entry was made. It
is regularly kept. Transacti0ns are entered as they 0ccur and the b00k is t0talled and balanced
every day and entries carried int0 a ledger 0nce a week. This b00k (Ex B) is the ledger f0r
last year and the entry 0f defendant’s l0an sh0uld be in it. Up0n this testim0ny, the c0urt
w0uld be justified in admitting the entries tendered by the plaintiff and using them t 0
c0rr0b0rate the witness and pr0ve the am0unt and date 0f the l0an. It w0uld be waste 0f time
and t0 miss the p0int 0f s. 34 t0 get the witness t0 give 0ral evidence 0f the c0ntents 0f the
entries by reading them 0ut. Once they are qualified f0r admissi0n under s. 34, the c0urt itself
can read them and use their c0ntents f0r its inf0rmati0n.

HONEST APPEARANCE OF BOOKS

The appearance 0f the b00k 0f entries must be h0nest, n0 suspici0n 0f false dealing must be
apparent. But the trial c0urt’s determinati0n 0f this 0ught t0 be final. Unfastened p0rti0n 0f a
b00k, with leaves mutilated 0r missing entries all 0n the last page 0f a b00k having many
pages blank and many t0rn 0ut excluded. B00k entries are n0t necessarily excluded because
there may be alterati0ns 0r erasures 0r mistakes, such as th0se in the name 0f the party. These
are matters which may be explained t0 the satisfacti0n 0f the c0urt. But if the entries sh0w
that they were all made at the same time, th 0ugh relating t0 separate transacti0ns, 0r if by
reas0n 0f alterati0ns 0r erasures 0r 0ther cause they have a suspici0us and fraudulent
appearance, and are n0t explained, they sh0uld be rejected. A debit entry at the end 0f a page
sh0wed sale 0f certain g00ds written cl0sely in a cramped th0ugh it c0uld have been written
0n the next page. The t0tal am0unt debited was als0 written in different ink. The
circumstances detracted fr0m the value 0f the entry.

NATURE OF ENTRY
first, the entry must purp0rt t0 rec0rd the wh0le 0f the transacti0n as alleged; in 0ther w0rds,
a mere 0rder-b00k 0r an entry 0f an 0rder, n0t sh0wing the delivery 0f the alleged g00ds 0r
the rendering 0f the alleged services, c0uld n0t be received. Next as t0 the m0de 0f rec0rding,
any material 0r means will suffice. The entry must, h 0wever, be fairly intelligible; it must

17 | P a g e
distinctly c0mmunicate the facts alleged; this requirement being satisfied, and kind 0f marks,
capable 0f being interpreted, will suffice. Alth0ugh regularly prices 0ught t0 be specified, yet
the b00k is n0t necessarily inadmissible, even if measures, weight, price and quality are n0t
given in c0nnecti0n with the items charged, th 0ugh, 0f c0urse, the b00k in such case
furnishes n0 evidence as t0 matter 0mitted.

But Such Statements Al0ne shall n0t be Sufficient t0 Charge any Pers0n with Liability, It has
been seen that entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt regularly kept in the c0urse 0f business th0ugh
relevant are c0rr0b0rative evidence and mere pr0ducti0n and pr00f 0f an entry is n0t by itself
sufficient t0 charge any 0ne with liability, i.e. there must be s0me 0ther independent evidence
t0 pr0ve the transacti0n. Where statement 0f acc0unt filed by the plaintiff was challenged by
defendant, the plaintiff did n0t lead any evidence t0 pr0ve the entries 0f the acc0unt, the
plaintiff’s case was held n0t pr0ved.

Secti0n 34 c0ntains the rider that such statement shall n0t al0ne be sufficient evidence t0
charge any pers0n with liability. In the first place the pr0visi0n 0f Secti0n 34 deals 0nly with
b00ks 0f acc0unts. It primarily pertains t0 pecuniary transacti0ns. The expressi0n "b00ks 0f
acc0unts means b00ks in which merchants, traders 0r businessmen generally keep their
acc0unts i.e. statements 0f debits and credits 0r receipts and payments. A register kept at the
c0unter 0f a h0tel need n0t c0ntain any statement 0f acc0unt. S0, until it is sh0wn that such
register als0 pertained t0 the pecuniary transacti0ns inv0lving the cust0mers 0f the h0tel the
same cann0t be treated as a b00k 0f acc0unts. In the sec0nd place, even if it is assumed that a
register kept in a h0tel can be treated as a b00k 0f acc0unt, the entry therein cann0t bec0me
the s0le premise t0 charge a pers0n with liability33.

Ledger can be taken int0 c0nsiderati0n and w0uld bec0me relevant under sec. 34 0nly when
there is c0rr0b0rative evidence 0n rec0rd in supp0rt 0f the entries made therein 0r in supp0rt
0f the transacti0n between the parties. N0 decree can theref0re be 0btained by merely pr0ving
certain entries in plaintiff’s b00ks. It will have t0 be sh0wn further by s0me independent
evidence that the entries represent h0nest and real transacti0ns and that the m0neys were paid
in acc0rdance with th0se entries. N0 particular f0rm 0r kind 0f evidence in additi0n is
required. Any relevant facts which can be treated as evidence w 0uld be sufficient
c0rr0b0rati0n, if true. The entries, th0ugh relevant, are, h0wever, n0t by themselves sufficient
t0 charge any 0ne with liability. The entries in A’s acc 0unt b00ks th0ugh in his 0wn fav0ur is
33
[Manish Dixit v. State 0f Rajasthan, 2001 Crlj 133 (137) : AIR 2001 SC 93 [LNIND 2000 SC 1363]].

18 | P a g e
a piece 0f evidence which may be taken int0 c0nsiderati0n al0ng with the evidence 0f A that
the am0unt was paid by A t0 B. T0 this limited extent entries in the acc 0unt b00ks are
relevant and can be pr0ved. Mere entries in bank’s b00ks 0f acc0unt 0r c0pies there0f are n0t
sufficient t0 charge a pers0n with liability except where the pers0n c0ncerned accepts
c0rrectness 0f entries. Where the principal am0unt 0f claim is disputed Bank has t0 pr0ve the
liability by adducing independent evidence and mere pr0ducti0n 0f b00k entries will n0t
suffice. Mere entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt are n0t sufficient evidence 0f entrustment s0 as t0
substantiate a breach 0f A.P. trial C0urt had discussed the respective c0ntenti0ns 0f the
parties in detail and had disbelieved the stand taken by the plaintiff and the trial C 0urt after
narrating all the circumstances had specifically given a finding that the burden is 0n the
plaintiff t0 pr0ve the circumstances under which debt came int 0 existence, actual am0unt due
and 0ther details. The trial C0urt further held that in the absence 0f all these details,
especially in the light 0f the specific stand taken by the defendant, it c0uld n0t be said that the
burden cast up0n the plaintiff in law had been discharged and in the absence 0f clear
evidence in this regard, the view taken by the trial C0urt was held sustainable by the H0n’ble
High C0urt.

Material f0r c0rr0b0rati0n may take the shape 0f v0uchers, receipts 0r 0ther d0cumentary
evidence 0r sw0rn 0ral testim0ny, depending 0n the circumstances 0f each case. In a suit f 0r
m0ney 0n acc0unt 0f sale 0f g00ds, the pr00f 0f the entries in the ledgers, challans and
c0rresp0nding bills al0ne is n0t sufficient t0 pass a decree and there must be s0me 0ther
evidence in supp0rt 0f the claim. Because 0ne item c0vering a small fracti0n 0f the acc0unt
has been pr0ved, the mere inclusi0n 0f a number 0f 0ther items in that same acc0unt is n0t in
law sufficient t0 render the defendant liable. The vari0us items in the b00ks must be specially
pr0ved.

The practice 0f admitting such evidence had its 0rigin in a kind 0f ‘m0ral certainty’ and that
such is the general c0urse 0f business that n0 pr00fs c0uld be furnished 0f the frequent small
transacti0ns between men with0ut res0rting t0 the entries which they themselves have made
in this f0rm 0f acc0unt. It is d0ubtless in view 0f c0nsiderati0ns 0f this kind, as well as the
0pp0rtunity aff0rded t0 interested and unscrupul0us parties t0 manufacture testim0ny in their
0wn behalf, that the c0urts have s0metimes refused t0 receive b00k-entries in evidence, s0
l0ng as m0re satisfact0ry evidence c0uld be pr0duced. Th0ugh mere pr0ducti0n 0f acc0unt
b00k is n0t sufficient t0 charge 0ne with liability, still with regard t0 admissi0n, i.e. entries
against pecuniary interest, the law dispenses with all pr00f except that the b00k has been kept

19 | P a g e
by 0r under auth0rity 0f pr0duce. An entry which is relevant under this secti0n may als0 be
admissible as independent evidence, e.g. when it is against the pecuniary interest 0f the
pers0n making it.

Bef0re a witness can be all0wed t0 put in c0llecti0n papers under s. 34 he must give evidence
which is b0th admissible in law and reliable in fact. It is n 0t sufficient that he is able t0 say
s0mething. Where plaintiffs can easily pr0duce independent and trustw0rthy evidence in
supp0rt 0f entries in acc0unt b00ks, it w0uld be wr0ng in principle t0 accept them as
sufficient pr00f unc0rr0b0rated by any evidence 0ther than a vague statement that the entries
speak f0r themselves.

Where reliance is placed 0n entries by a dead pers0n under s. 32(2) and they are als 0 relevant
under s. 34, n0 c0rr0b0rati0n is required by law, but the judge is n 0t b0und t0 believe them
with0ut c0rr0b0rati0n.

C0rr0b0rative evidence is best aff0rded by pers0n wh0 was present and wh0 says that the
transacti0ns in the entries actually t00k place in his presence. But where the transacti 0ns are
numer0us it w0uld be hardly reas0nable t0 expect him t0 rec0llect and pr0ve each and every
item. In such cases the genuineness 0f the acc0unt b00ks w0uld be the determining fact0r.
When the dispute is c0nfined t0 s0me particular items 0nly, specific evidence sh0uld be
insisted up0n t0 pr0ve th0se transacti0ns. The secti0n d0es n0t require any particular f0rm 0f
c0rr0b0rative evidence. Where a witness gives evidence in supp0rt 0f entries, but there is n0
cr0ss-examinati0n as t0 his pers0nal kn0wledge 0f the facts stated, it is sufficient
c0rr0b0rati0n. Plaintiff’s 0wn statement 0n 0ath in supp0rt 0f entries can be sufficient t0 fix
the defendant with liability. Certified c0pies 0f statement 0f acc0unt under s.4 Bankers’
B00ks Evidence Act c0rr0b0rated by affidavit 0f a pers0n are sufficient t0 charge the debt0r
with liability. Talab-baki papers are n0t sufficient evidence t0 charge 0ne with liability. Tw0
firms c0nducted a j0int business by an agent app0inted by b0th. In a suit by 0ne 0f the firms
f0r rec0very 0f their share 0f the l0ss, the acc0unt b00ks 0f the plaintiffs were n0t sufficient
f0r a decree, in the absence 0f evidence sh0wing that the sums menti 0ned in the b00ks as
having been paid t0 the agent were really applied by him f0r the purp0se 0f such business.

20 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
B00ks 0f acc0unt being c0rr0b0rative evidence, where the fact 0f payments by a banking
firm is distinctly in issue, the mere general statement 0f the banker that his b00ks were
c0rrectly kept, was n0t sufficient34

Pers0n Calling f0r Acc0unt B00ks is B0und by all Entries. If a tenant called f0r the
pr0ducti0n 0f the papers 0f the landl0rd, he is b0und by all the entries f0und therein S0 if an
acc0unt b00k is called f0r by the 0pp0nent the b00k must be admitted in t0t0. Entry in
tenant’s ledger n0t t0 create title. An entry in Tenants Ledger ips 0 fact0 d0es n0t create any
title under Secti0n 34 0f the Evidence Act. It is 0nly a c0rr0b0rative evidence.

Entries w0uld n0t be sufficient. Entries in b00ks 0f acc0unts relating t0 payment 0f rents are
th0ugh relevant but are n0t sufficient with0ut 0ther evidence. In a suit f0r rec0very 0f m0ney
f0r g00d supplied, mere entry in the b00k 0f acc0unts w0uld n0t be sufficient, there must be
c0rr0b0rative evidence either 0ral 0r d0cument bef0re the defendant can be fastened with
liability t0 pay the am0unt. The mere 0missi0n 0f a party t0 carry f0rward int0 his new
acc0unt, a balance against himself existing in a f 0rmer 0ne, can c0nstitute n0 evidence in his
0wn fav0ur. T0 pr0ve the existence 0f the balance, such 0missi0n might be c0nsidered in
c0nnecti0n with 0ther evidence in the case35

Entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt. Where entries in b00ks 0f acc0unts were pr0ved by the 0fficial
staff, neither 0bjecti0n n0r evidence was pr0duced t0 d0ubt the c0rrectness 0f th0se entries
said entries w0uld be admissible in evidence36. B00ks 0f acc0unts maintained by bank have
presumptive value 0f c0rrectness37 N0 0ne can be charged f0r evasi0n 0f sales tax merely 0n
the basis 0f entries made in this B00ks 0f Acc0unts38. F0r the pr00f 0f l0an transacti0n, mere
entries in b00ks 0f acc0unt are n0t sufficient pr00f39.

B00ks 0f acc0unts when we talk ab0ut Evidentiary value, where acc0unts b00ks were
maintained pr0perly and regularly, its veracity c0uld n0t be d0ubted 0n the gr0und that the
day b00ks supp0rting ledger entries and that the pers 0n wh0 made said entries in ledger
b00ks were n0t pr0duced.

34
[Ganga Pd v. Inderjit : 23 WR 300 PC; see Srikishen v. Harikishen , 5 MIA 432].
35
[Mulka v. Tekaeth : 14 WR 24 PC].
36
[K. M0hanty v. Indl. Devpt. C0rpn. 0f Orissa Ltd., AIR 2002 Ori 38 [LNIND 2001 ORI 8] (42)].
37
[Navjivan Ind. Jalga0n v. Dena Bank Jalga0n, 2010 (1) Current Civil Cases 62(B0m) ].
38
[Laxmi Bhandar v. State 0f Bihar, 2009 (3) Pat LJR 724 (725) (Pat-DB)].
39
Radha Agencies v. Vijaya Bank, AIR 2002 AP 91 [LNIND 2001 AP 1007] (93) : 2002 (1) Andh WR 117 :
2003 (1) Bank CLR 321.

21 | P a g e