absence of entry in a book acount may be relevant under s. 9 and 11 of evidence act
Sessions judge acted legally and properly in allowing the approver to refresh his memory, while deposing, by referring to the account books and other documents produced in the case. Where a witness has to depose to a large number of transactions and those transactions are referred to or mentioned either in the account books or in other documents there is nothing wrong in allowing the witness to refer to the account books and the documents
while questions are put to him. Such a course is specifically permitted by ss. 19 and 160 of the Evidence Act.
Held further, that the account books of the firms which contained no entries with respect to payments alleged to have been made were not relevant under s. 34 of the Evidence Act, as that section is applicable only to entries in account books regularly kept and says nothing about non- existence of entries. But they were relevant under s. I I of the Act as the absence of the entries would be inconsistent with the receipt of the amounts which was a fact in issue. They were also relevant under s. 5 to prove the facts alleged by the prosecution that payments were never made to these firms and that those firms maintained their accounts in the regular course of business, and both these were relevant facts.
1963 AIR 1850 1964 SCR (3) 297
CITATOR INFO :
R 1973 SC2210 (14,24)
F 1975 SC1309 (8,15)
https://www.lawweb.in/2012/05/absence-of-entry-in-book-acount-may-be.htm
while questions are put to him. Such a course is specifically permitted by ss. 19 and 160 of the Evidence Act.
Held further, that the account books of the firms which contained no entries with respect to payments alleged to have been made were not relevant under s. 34 of the Evidence Act, as that section is applicable only to entries in account books regularly kept and says nothing about non- existence of entries. But they were relevant under s. I I of the Act as the absence of the entries would be inconsistent with the receipt of the amounts which was a fact in issue. They were also relevant under s. 5 to prove the facts alleged by the prosecution that payments were never made to these firms and that those firms maintained their accounts in the regular course of business, and both these were relevant facts.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1850, 1964 SCR (3) 297
CITATION:1963 AIR 1850 1964 SCR (3) 297
CITATOR INFO :
R 1973 SC2210 (14,24)
F 1975 SC1309 (8,15)
https://www.lawweb.in/2012/05/absence-of-entry-in-book-acount-may-be.htm
