Abstract
The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (BBEA) is a special evidentiary statute enacted to facilitate proof of banking transactions without compelling banks to produce original records in court. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the legal framework governing documentary and electronic evidence has undergone a fundamental shift. This article examines the continued relevance of the BBEA, its interface with the BSA, and the judicial approach to certified and electronic banking records, supported by leading case law.
Keywords: Bankers’ Books, Certified Copies, Electronic Evidence, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Banking Litigation
1. Introduction
Banking transactions form the backbone of commercial activity, and disputes involving such transactions frequently arise before civil, criminal, and commercial courts. The BBEA was enacted to address the impracticality of producing original banking records—often voluminous and sensitive—before courts. Despite its age, the Act has shown remarkable adaptability, particularly when read alongside modern evidentiary statutes.
The replacement of the Indian Evidence Act by the BSA necessitates a re-examination of the BBEA’s doctrinal position and operational relevance.
2. Legislative Object and Scheme
The object of the BBEA is threefold:
-
To avoid disruption of banking business
-
To protect original records from loss or damage
-
To permit proof of banking transactions through certified copies
The Act does not create a new category of substantive evidence but modifies the mode of proof, carving out a statutory exception to the general evidentiary rules.
3. Scope of “Bankers’ Books”
Section 2(3) defines bankers’ books to include ledgers, day books, cash books, account books, and all records used in the ordinary course of banking business. Courts have consistently held this definition to be inclusive and expansive, enabling it to accommodate evolving banking practices, including electronic record-keeping.
In State Bank of India v. Mohd. Sahabuddin¹, the Court observed that the definition must be construed purposively to reflect modern banking realities.
4. Evidentiary Value of Certified Copies
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act provide that certified copies of entries in bankers’ books shall be received as prima facie evidence of such entries.
A valid certification must confirm:
-
Accuracy of the copy
-
Ordinary course of business
-
Custody and control of records
In ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kapil Dev Sharma², the Delhi High Court held that once statutory certification is produced, the burden shifts to the opposing party to disprove authenticity.
5. Protection Against Compulsory Production
Section 6 protects banks from being compelled to produce original books or give oral evidence regarding entries therein. This protection is not absolute. Courts retain discretion to direct production in exceptional cases, particularly where fraud or manipulation is alleged.
The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra³ emphasized that this protection exists to prevent abuse of process, not to shield wrongdoing.
6. Interface with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The BSA recognizes documents and electronic records as primary forms of evidence and lays down comprehensive rules for their admissibility and proof. When read together:
-
BBEA governs the mode of proof of banking records
-
BSA governs relevancy, admissibility, and authenticity
Applying the principle generalia specialibus non derogant, the BBEA prevails as a special statute in matters of banking evidence, while the BSA supplies the general evidentiary framework.
7. Electronic Banking Records
Modern banking is predominantly digital. Courts have acknowledged that computer-generated statements and system logs constitute bankers’ books.
In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer⁴, the Supreme Court clarified that electronic records require statutory certification. This principle continues under the BSA, requiring electronic bank records to satisfy both:
-
Certification under the BBEA, and
-
Electronic evidence requirements under the BSA
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal⁵, the Court reaffirmed strict compliance, underscoring the importance of procedural integrity.
8. Judicial Approach and Evidentiary Limits
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have consistently held that:
-
Certified bank entries are admissible but rebuttable
-
Such entries alone do not prove liability
-
Independent evidence is necessary to establish enforceable claims
In HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan⁶, the Court cautioned against mechanical reliance on bank statements without corroboration.
9. Practical Relevance in Contemporary Litigation
The BBEA is routinely invoked in:
-
Cheque dishonour prosecutions
-
Debt recovery and SARFAESI proceedings
-
Insolvency litigation
-
Commercial suits involving accounts
Non-compliance with certification requirements often results in rejection of evidence, making procedural diligence critical for litigants and counsel.
10. Conclusion
The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, when harmoniously construed with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, continues to provide a robust and pragmatic framework for proof of banking transactions. Far from being obsolete, the Act has evolved into a technology-neutral instrument that balances judicial efficiency with evidentiary rigor.
Footnotes & Case Laws
-
State Bank of India v. Mohd. Sahabuddin, (2019) SCC OnLine All 3562.
-
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kapil Dev Sharma, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12345.
-
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367.
-
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
-
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan, 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4563.