Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that the petitioner was unable to prove the legal liability of the respondents for the offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 against the respondents on account of the cheque given by them being dishonoured on presentation, on account of “insufficient funds”. The respondents were appointed as the dealer of the petitioner’s products. According to the petitioner, the respondent defaulted in paying a certain sum of money to them, after which the petitioner presented the cheque provided by the respondents for satisfying the outstanding dues. The respondent’s, however, disputed any liability.
The petitioners, Samsung, were represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta and Ajay P. Tulsi and Khushboo Nahar, Advocates. To prove their case, the petitioner produced a computer-generated copy of the ledger statement of the respondent’s account maintained with the petitioner.
The High Court, relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 and reiterated the principles laid down therein: “a computer-generated document would be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible.”
The Court observed: “Legal position on the point is thus well settled that is if the document is otherwise inadmissible for want of a certificate or any other requirement of law, it is exhibited in the course of trial does not make the document admissible in law and though an objection as to the mode of proof can be waived off and should be taken at the first instance, however the objection as to the admissibility of a document which goes to the root of the matter can be taken at any stage.” Since the petitioner did not submit the Section 65-B certificate, the computer-generated ledger produced by it was held inadmissible.
As the petitioner was not able to prove the legal liability which was disputed by the respondents, the High Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed.[Samsung (India) Electronics (P) Ltd. v. MGR Enterprises, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8877, decided on 24-05-2019]
