AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tran date,"Value
date",Particulars,LocationÂ,"Chq
No.",Withdrawals,DepositsÂ,Balance
29-
102008","29-
10-
2008","Ac xfr from gl
05057 to 05050Â","Mount
road, Che",,,"16,25,524.94",0.00
29-
122009Â","29-
12-
2009","By       Â
cash,Â
Punjabi
          Â
Bagh,
New DelhiÂ","Punjabi
Bagh, NÂ",,,"50,000","17,49,002.12
Dr
31-
122009","31-
12-
2009","By       Â
cash,Â
Punjabi
          Â
Bagh,
New DelhiÂ","Punjabi
Bagh, NÂ",,,"50,000","16,99,002.12
Dr
7-1-
2010","7-1-
2010","TRFR Â Â From
Bhopal
          Â
Singh Negi/009539","Preet
Vihar",,,"75,800","16,49,890.12
Dr
7-1-
2010","7-1-
2010","TRFR Â Â From
Bhopal
          Â
Singh Negi/009540","Preet
Vihar",,,"5,50,000","10,99,890.12
Dr
Evidence Act, 1891 ('Act' for short), which stipulates that a certified copy of any entry in a banker’s books shall in all legal proceedings be",,,,,,,
received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein",,,,,,,
recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. Under this",,,,,,,
Section, the copy of accounts certified in accordance with Section 2(8) of the Act is prima facie evidence and does not require proof by production of",,,,,,,
cheques and vouchers etc. relating to each entry. Such a copy must be received as prima facie evidence not only of existence of such entries but also,,,,,,,
for the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded.Â",,,,,,,
In the present case, certified copies of the respondent-bank's statement of accounts had been filed. The certified copies were prima facie",,,,,,,
evidence which in context of the present case must be accepted. Therefore reliance placed on the lack of personal knowledge of Mr. Anuj Jain in,,,,,,,
respect of the entries made in the books is immaterial.,,,,,,,
At this stage we would refer to the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed versus The State of Bombay,1958 SCR 328, which holds that proof of",,,,,,,
genuineness of a document is proof of authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like any other fact. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment,,,,,,,
reads as under :-,,,,,,,
“11. Most of the letters from the appellant relied upon bear what purport to be his signatures. A few of them are admitted by the appellant. There,,,,,,,
are also a few letters without signatures. Both the complainant and Jasawalla speak to the signatures on the other letters. The objection of the learned,,,,,,,
counsel for the appellant is that neither of them has actually seen the appellant write any of the letters nor are they shown to have such intimate,,,,,,,
acquaintance with his correspondence as to enable them to speak to the genuineness of these signatures. Learned trial Judge as well as the learned,,,,,,,
Judges of the High Court have found that there were sufficient number of admitted or proved letters which might well enable Jasawalla and the,,,,,,,
complainant to identify the signatures of the appellant in the disputed letters. They also laid stress substantially on the contents of the various letters, in",,,,,,,
the context of the other letters and telegrams to which they purport to be replies and which form the chain of correspondence, as indicating the",,,,,,,
genuineness of the disputed letters. Learned counsel objected to this approach on a question of proof. We are, however, unable to see any objection.",,,,,,,
The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence,,,,,,,
relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature,,,,,,,
being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian",,,,,,,
Evidence Act. It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be,,,,,,,
of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the",,,,,,,
satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a",,,,,,,
reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as",,,,,,,
also his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship. In an appropriate case the court may also be in a",,,,,,,
position to judge whether the document constitutes a genuine link in the chain of correspondence and thus to determine its authorship. We are unable,",,,,,,,
therefore, to say that the approach adopted by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion that the letters are genuine is open to any serious legal",,,,,,,
objection. The question, if any, can only be as to the adequacy of the material on which the conclusion as to the genuineness of the letters is arrived at.",,,,,,,
That however is a matter which we cannot permit to be canvassed before us.""",,,,,,,
It is apparent that the petitioner has a running account evident from the withdrawals and deposits made in due course of business. The deposits are,,,,,,,
not on one but on different dates and the amounts deposited are not in the hundreds but on occasion as high as Rs. 16 lacs and Rs. 5.50 lacs on,,,,,,,
29.10.2008 and 07.01.2010, respectively. As per the statement, two deposits of Rs.50,000/- each were made on 29.12.2009 and 31.12.2009 and Rs.",,,,,,,
75,800/- was deposited on 07.01.2010. Pertinently the petitioner had also made withdrawals after these deposits were made. Ex facie, the statement",,,,,,,
of accounts including the quantity of deposits made is sufficient to reject the contention that the deposits were made by the respondent bank from its,,,,,,,
own sources. The entries were made in October 2008, December 2009 and January 2010. The O.A. was itself filed in August 2012.Â",,,,,,,
In view of the facts noticed above, the statement of accounts itself is reliable and negate the assertion on fraud and forgery made by the petitioner,",,,,,,,
which is far-fetched and unworthy of acceptance. The entries are also duly corroborated by the conduct of the petitioner who has on different dates,",,,,,,,
even after making the deposit, continued to make withdrawal transactions. 16. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal are cogent and reasonable.",,,,,,,
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Tribunal remitting the O.A. to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits is justified and in accordance with law.",,,,,,,
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.09.2018 at 10:00 am, with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the O.A. No. 275/2012 as",,,,,,,
expeditiously as possible, and as per law.Â",,,,,,,
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application is also dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Â,,,,,,,