सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 28

Entries in books of account when relevant

Why this exists

Businesses have long kept ledgers and account books to track debts and transactions. Courts recognized these records as useful evidence since they are made regularly and routinely, not created specially for a lawsuit. But because a person could write anything in their own books to favor themselves, the law insists that account entries alone cannot be the sole basis for proving someone owes money — independent corroborating evidence is required. This provision, inherited from the old Indian Evidence Act (Section 34) and carried into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was also updated to explicitly cover electronic records, reflecting how modern businesses maintain digital books instead of paper ledgers.

How courts read it

Under the predecessor provision (Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), courts consistently held that account books are relevant evidence but require independent corroboration to fix liability. For instance, in cases like Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court emphasized that mere entries in account books, without further proof of the transaction actually taking place, cannot establish a debt or liability. This judicial approach is expected to continue guiding interpretation of the corresponding Section 28 under the new Adhiniyam.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: If a business shows its account books listing a debt, that alone is enough to make someone pay.
    Fact: The law specifically says account entries alone are not sufficient; additional evidence is required to prove liability.
  • Myth: Only paper ledgers count as 'books of account' under this law.
    Fact: The provision explicitly includes electronic records, so digital accounting systems and spreadsheets are equally covered.