Trades and businesses run on their books — cash books, ledgers, day books, and now the accounting databases and cloud platforms that have largely replaced their paper predecessors. When those books become evidence in litigation, the question is how much they can be made to say. Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) admits them, subject to a crucial ceiling — entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, but they will not, by themselves, prove liability.
28. Entries in books of account when relevant. Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, 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 one thousand rupees, 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.
The BSA's small but meaningful update
Section 28 corresponds to Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records "No change except the words 'include those maintained in an electronic form' are excluded from the heading." The operative text of the section still contains "including those maintained in an electronic form"; the change is purely to the heading, which has been tidied. The substantive rule — including the express coverage of electronic account books — is preserved.
| Feature | Section 34, IEA | Section 28, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Heading | "Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, when relevant" | "Entries in books of account when relevant" |
| Operative text | Includes electronic books of account (post-2000 amendment) | Identical — electronic books of account are within the section |
| Substantive rule and ceiling | Relevant, but not alone sufficient to charge liability | Identical |
Three requirements that must be met
The ceiling: relevant, but not alone sufficient
The second half of the section is as important as the first. Even where entries qualify under Section 28, they cannot by themselves prove that a person owes anything or is otherwise legally liable. The illustration puts it plainly: A sues B for one thousand rupees and shows entries in A's own books to that effect. The entries are relevant — but they cannot, alone, prove the debt against B. Some other evidence must corroborate the entries before the court can charge B with liability.
This ceiling exists for a straightforward reason. Books of account are typically kept by one side of a transaction; they reflect the record-keeper's own account of what happened, and the other party has no ordinary means to control or contest the entries at the time they are made. Allowing such books to prove liability without more would let a party manufacture their own case. The Section 28 ceiling addresses that by requiring corroboration — a receipt, a witness, correspondence, a delivery challan, or the party's own admission — before liability is fixed.
Electronic books of account in current practice
Modern businesses maintain their books electronically — through accounting software, ERP systems, cloud-based ledgers, and integrated point-of-sale platforms. Section 28's express inclusion of books "maintained in an electronic form" was among the earliest legislative recognitions of that shift, and the BSA preserves it. A properly maintained electronic ledger, regularly used in the ordinary course of business, is within Section 28 exactly as a paper ledger would be. The BSA's dedicated electronic-evidence provisions in Sections 61 to 63 remain relevant to the mode of proof of any electronic version tendered as secondary evidence, but Section 28 supplies the substantive relevance.
Interlock with the neighbouring provisions
Section 28 sits alongside Section 29, which covers entries in public and official records (with electronic records included), and Section 33, which lets fragments of a longer record be given context. Section 28 is the private-record counterpart to Section 29's public-record rule — both admit entries directly, without requiring the maker's testimony, but only Section 29 covers duty-recorded public entries. Section 28 also interacts with Section 32 on foreign law books and with Section 30 on maps and plans: together, these provisions form Chapter II's set of documentary-relevancy rules.
Practical litigation approach
Counsel bringing a suit or defence that leans on books of account should plan for the corroboration requirement from the outset. Independent proof might come from delivery receipts signed by the opposite party, confirmation-of-balance correspondence, bank statements showing matching movement of funds, tax returns filed on the basis of the same accounts, or invoices acknowledged by the counterparty. Where the entries are electronic, the metadata itself — timestamps, user identities, edit histories — can help authenticate the entries and support their weight. What Section 28 will not tolerate is a case that stands on nothing more than the plaintiff's own ledger.
For defence counsel, the section's ceiling is a useful early argument. If the plaintiff has led the books but no corroborating material, the case cannot be decreed on the books alone — even if the entries are meticulous and undisputed on their face. That structural point can be pressed at the framing-of-issues stage and again at final arguments, forcing the plaintiff either to produce the missing corroboration or to accept the section's limit on the weight of their own record.
Key Takeaways
- Book of account entries are relevant: entries in regularly-kept books of account, referring to a matter in inquiry, are relevant facts.
- Electronic books included: the section expressly covers books maintained in electronic form; only the heading was tidied by the BSA.
- Ceiling on sufficiency: such entries alone are not sufficient to charge any person with liability — corroboration is required.
- Three requirements: the document must be a book of account, regularly kept in the course of business, with entries touching the current issue.
- Substantive rule unchanged: the only BSA edit is a heading tidy-up; the operative provision is preserved.
Conclusion
Section 28 recognises the practical importance of accounting records in commercial litigation while guarding against the risk of self-serving proof. Its ceiling — relevant but not alone sufficient — is the section's most important feature, and the illustration ensures no litigant can mistake it. The BSA's decision to tidy the heading while preserving the electronic-books wording in the operative text keeps the rule current for modern accounting practice without changing its careful evidentiary balance.