Scribd
Upload
58 views3 pages

Evidentiary Value of Bank Records PDF

The document discusses the evidentiary value of bank records in court. It explains that primary evidence is preferred over secondary evidence, but electronic records stored on servers or clouds have become common. While these cannot practically be brought to court, secondary electronic evidence is now allowed. The Bankers' Books Evidence Act of 1891 specifies that certified copies of bank records containing an official certificate are admissible as prima facie evidence. Objections to uncertified bank records must be raised when they are presented, not after, otherwise the defect could have been remedied.

Uploaded by

Vipra Vashishtha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views3 pages

Evidentiary Value of Bank Records PDF

The document discusses the evidentiary value of bank records in court. It explains that primary evidence is preferred over secondary evidence, but electronic records stored on servers or clouds have become common. While these cannot practically be brought to court, secondary electronic evidence is now allowed. The Bankers' Books Evidence Act of 1891 specifies that certified copies of bank records containing an official certificate are admissible as prima facie evidence. Objections to uncertified bank records must be raised when they are presented, not after, otherwise the defect could have been remedied.

Uploaded by

Vipra Vashishtha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Evidentiary Value of Bank Records

Primary and Secondary both form of Evidence is admissible under the law.
Sections 61,62,63,64 65 and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deal with
the concept pertaining to Primary and Secondary form of Evidence.
It is a well settled principle of law that Primary Evidence is given priority
over the Secondary Evidence, but in the new era of Digital India, it is not a
general practice to store data in written form all the time.
Most of the data nowadays are stored electronically on big Servers (M/s
ICICI BANK LIMITED v. KAPIL DEV SHARMA), Clouds, etc.. with the
help of computer programs, making it easily accessible and secure.
Now when these documents are to be submitted in a court as Evidence, it becomes
practically impossible to bring out these Hard-Drives, Servers or data stored on
Cloud pertaining to the concerned party, which is stored along with the data of
many other people. Hence, courts have recognized this need to adapt with
technology and allowed Secondary Evidence to be submitted in cases where
Primary Evidence which is in electronic form is impossible to be produced.
Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 elucidates that books of accounts,
including Bank records, which are maintained in the daily course of business in
electronic form or otherwise are relevant (CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION V/SV.C. SHUKLA & ORS) to be admissible in a court of
law. For establishing liability of a person, however further proof and
Evidence relating the same may have to be submitted.
This Act tends to illustrate the provisions, which provide for the conditions which
are to be followed while submitting bank records as Evidence in a court of law.
Section 4 of Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891, deals with the mode of proving
such bank records. Bank records should be accompanied by a certificate in
accordance with section 2(8) and 2A of the Act. The certificate is to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of the entry in banking records. The printout of entry
or copy of such printout along with the certificate by the branch
manager/principal accountant and the person in charge of the computer
resource which generated that entry together makes a "certified copy". A
certified copy of any entry of banker's book shall be admissible prima facie
as Evidence.

Section 65B is pari materiaui (OM PRAKASH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF


INVESTIGATION (CBI)) to section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act,
which means they are to be construed together. Section 65B of the Act lays down
conditions to be followed while admitting Secondary Evidence in electronic form.
"Generalia specialibus non derogant", a special law will always prevail over the
general law (Anvar P.V Versus P.K. Basheer and others).

Hence it can be construed that even though there is a provision under the Evidence
Act dealing with the admissibility of electronic records (65B), section 2A of
Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891 specifically deals with the admissibility of
banking entries in electronic form. So according to the principle of Generalia
Specialibus section 2A of the Act is to be referred while dealing with the
admissibility of banking records in electronic form and not section 65B.

On April 24th, 2009 RBI published a notification advising State and Central
Co-operative Banks to comply with the provisions of Banker's Books
Evidence Act, 1891 while furnishing certified copies and computer printouts
to courts. The notification further says that if such statutory certification is
not complied with, the courts will not be obliged to admit the document in
Evidence without any further proof.

Objection for Uncertified Banking Records

The nature of the statutory provisions as discussed above, however, the primary
question which bursts out is –

Whether or not an objection pertaining to the admissibility of banking


records submitted in court without such certification is possible or not? And
if possible, then whether the court will accept such Evidence or not?

These questions are not new! Hence there are some case laws answering the same.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in some recent judgments held that an objection, if any,
has to be raised relating to the admissibility of a banking record, such
objection has to be raised at the time when such record is tendered in
Evidence and not after that.

The objections can be divided of two types, i.e. (i) an objection that the document
which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in Evidence; and (ii) where the
objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in Evidence but is
directed towards the mode of proof alleging (R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V/S
Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & AR). Type (i) objection can be
raised even at a later stage when the document is marked as "an exhibit", in appeal
or revision. Type (ii) objection has to be raised at the time when that record is
presented for Evidence and not after such record is admitted as Evidence and
marked as an exhibit. This is due to the rule of fair play. Court says that objection
of type (ii) dealing with the mode of proving, should be dealt with, at the first
instance because then it would give appropriate time to the submitting party to
remove such defect and also they won't assume that the opposite party is not
serious about the mode of proof.

There are two more reasons why a prompt objection won't be prejudicial to the
party tendering Evidence:

 Enables the court to apply its mind on the question of admissibility then
and there.
 The party leading Evidence can ask the court to remove such objection or
allow a suitable method of proof.

Test -The crucial test to find out whether an objection should be allowed or
not depends on the fact that the defect in question could have been cured at
the stage of marking the document and the party tendering Evidence could
have opted for a regular mode of proof or not?

(R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v/s Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple &
AR)

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation


held that inadmissible Evidence would remain inadmissible even if marked
as an exhibit or no objection relating to the admissibility was raised.

Banking records are a valid and reliable source of Evidence. However, for
ensuring there accuracy, certification method under the provisions of Banker's
Books Evidence Act, 1891 is to be complied with. While certification process,
this should be kept in mind that the ingredients under section 2(8) of the Act
are the only directory and not mandatory, hence a rigid and highly technical
attitude will not be of much use while complying with the provision.

If an objection regarding the mode of proof has to be made, it should be at the


very stage when such document is tendered in Evidence, before it is marked as
an exhibit, and not after that ( M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED V/S KAPIL DEV
SHARMA). If a record submitted is inadmissible, it will remain inadmissible
whether an objection was raised or not, or whether it was marked as an exhibit.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy