JUDGMENT

The plaintiff came up in appeal on the reason that the suit claim for Rs.10,05,704/- with interest was not granted by the trial court, but decreed the suit in part for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- covered by Ext.A3 cheque. The dispute is centering around Exts.A11 and A12 statement of accounts, which were heavily relied on by the plaintiff in support of their claim for Rs.10,05,704/-. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of soaps and detergent. Exts.A11 and A12 were maintained in connection with the purchase of soap and detergent by the defendant. A13 series are the invoice of the purchase of articles on various occasions. But there is no payment schedule annexed to that document. Hence, the plaintiff heavily relied on Exts.A11 and A12, the register and ledger maintained in the usual course of business.

2. In order to resolve the issue, it is necessary to address as to what is the evidentiary value that can be attached to a document under Section 34 of the Evidence Act and what would be the legal position, when the document itself is an unbound sheets of paper with certain entries and whether it can be brought under the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and also what would be the legal position after the amendment to the section by Act 21 of 2000.

3. It is by virtue of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, a self serving document was brought under the purview of 'relevant evidence', whenever they refer to a matter in dispute pending consideration before a court. But such a statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The second part of Section 34 of the Evidence Act makes the legal position clear that even on the compliance of requirement as mandated in the first part of the section, that is, the entries in the books of account must be a one regularly kept in the course of business, such statement or entry shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The principle behind it is that by virtue of section 34 of the Act, a self serving entry or statement brought under the category of relevant evidence and hence it mandates strict compliance of requirement that it was kept in course of business. The expression “regularly kept in the course of business” and the user of the word “regularly” in the section manifests complete trustworthiness in the maintenance and keeping of such statement or entry in the course of business and hence requires an unabetted maintenance of entry/statement in the course of business. Otherwise, the document would fall under the category of 'self-serving evidence' having no relevance at all. Even if it is shown as unabetted and reliable kept regularly in the course of business, it cannot be the sole basis for fastening liability. Inorder to have an application of Section 34 of the Evidence Act regarding relevancy of a particular entry/statement, the entire year-wise/period- wise register kept in usual course of business should be produced so as to ascertain the core requirement “regularly kept in the course of business” by ruling out the chances of manipulation, overwriting, alteration, substitution and elements of repugnancy etc.. A mere oral evidence adduced through the person who maintained the record is not sufficient to discharge and satisfy the said core ingredient. Mere production of some unbound sheets of paper with certain entries or a particular sheet in which the entry was made referring to the matter in dispute alone is not sufficient to satisfy that it was maintained and kept regularly in the course of business, even if it is supported by the oral evidence of the person who kept the record or who maintained the same. The section is carefully worded by the incorporation of “books of account” and entries thereof.

4. What is produced and let in evidence as Exts.A11 and A12 are unbound sheets of paper and not a register or a books of account. It was submitted that it is the electronically generated sheets of paper and a