Entries in books of account when relevant
Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with entries in books of account when relevant. [Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic from], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
[Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic from], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
Illustration A sues B for Rs. 1,000, and shows entries in his account books showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt.
Section 34, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 28 Entries in books of account when relevant Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
CBI v. V.C. Shukla
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 1998-03-02 DATE VERIFIED. Mukherjee/Kurdukar/Thomas (Jain hawala diaries). Isolates IEA 34: entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, but shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability; loose sheets are not 'books'; spiral diaries of illicit receipts can be books of account if regularly kept, yet still cannot found a charge without independent evidence. Map iea 34 + BSA 28 successor (near-identical 0.9708). Do not pad PC Act 7/13 or ipc 120B.
On this section: IEA 34 makes regularly kept books of account relevant, but those entries alone cannot charge a person with liability; loose sheets are not books (CBI v. V.C. Shukla).
-
R.Sridhar Varma and R.Krishna varma vs Garigipati Gani Raju
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the signature on a cheque is admitted, the mandatory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the burden shifts to the accused to provide a probable defense via preponderance of probabilities.
On this section: Relevancy of books of account and admissibility of electronic records.
-
BIMAN MUKHERJEE vs NARAYAN GIRI
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a history of documented transactions via banking channels exists between parties, a claim of a significant subsequent cash loan without documentation constitutes a suspicious deviation that probabilizes the defense and rebuts the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
On this section: Admissibility of ledger accounts and relevance of course of business.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The prosecution case against Binod Nayak, Gurucharan Nayak, and Lalu Nayak is that they shared a common intention to commit the murder of Ajit Nayak. The intention of the accused has to be gathered from his act(s) and conduct as well as from the other relevant circumstances of the case. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act which does not create a substantive offence by itself is applied against one or more persons to prosecute them for the offence committed by one of the accused. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a criminal Act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common …
-
… The prosecution case against Binod Nayak, Gurucharan Nayak, and Lalu Nayak is that they shared a common intention to commit the murder of Ajit Nayak. The intention of the accused has to be gathered from his act(s) and conduct as well as from the other relevant circumstances of the case. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act which does not create a substantive offence by itself is applied against one or more persons to prosecute them for the offence committed by one of the accused. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a criminal Act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common …
Questions about Section 34
What have the courts held on Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act?
CBI v. V.C. Shukla (02 Mar 1998) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IEA 34 makes regularly kept books of account relevant, but those entries alone cannot charge a person with liability; loose sheets are not books (CBI v. V.C. Shukla). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1998 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 34, section 34 IEA, section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with CBI v. V.C. Shukla (02 Mar 1998).
What should I read with Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 28 (Entries in books of account when relevant), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 34, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.