Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: generated by computer in Aneja Communications vs Sandeep Malik Cc 4319/2017 on 30 March, 2022Matching Fragments
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has disputed the very factum of the complainant being a distributor of I-Phones in the absence of documentary evidence in this respect. He further questioned the existence of transaction and the claim of frequent business between the parties in the absence of corresponding bills/account statement. Delivery of the goods is disputed by the accused whilst questioning the furnishing of computer generated Transporter Bill Ex. CW1/A by the complainant without a 65B Certificate as per the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The matter was reserved for judgement after hearing rival submissions on both sides.
Under Section 118(a) of the NI Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal."3 Therefore, the existence of legally enforceable liability has been challenged by the accused on several grounds discussed hereunder upon raising of probable defence. Admissibility of Ex. CW1/A i.e. Computer Generated Invoice
11. The proof of second ingredient i.e. existence of liability between the parties is hinged on the existence of transaction i.e. purchase of mobile phones by the accused against the alleged oral order reflected via a computer generated invoice i.e. Ex. CW1/A. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has raised objection to the admissibility of the Computer Generated Invoice Ex CW1/A on the ground that neither it is accompanied by a proper 65B Certificate as per the mandate of the Evidence Act nor it bears any receiving of the accused as proof of delivery. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that this objection with respect to the admissibility of the 2 Paras 11 and 12.
5 Ibid.
10 of 15 AISHWARYA Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2022.03.31 01:32:56 +05'30' Aneja Communications vs Sandeep Malik CC 4319/2017 complainant himself deposed that only two copies of the invoices were generated i.e. one the seller and purchaser each, and the goods were delivered to the accused by hand, no question arises for generation of an invoice duplicate for a transporter. Thus, the computer generated invoice Ex. CW1/A is an unreliable document and cannot be read in evidence.