State vs Kishan Dayal on 15 January, 1952
5. So far as the question of the alleged shortage of cash in hand is concerned, the prosecution relied merely on the entries in the relevant books of account. This was, however, far from having proved the shortage. Had the books of account been regularly kept in the course of business, formal proof of the entries serving to make out the allegation would not have been necessary in view of the provisions of Section 34, Evidence Act. Even then those entries would not alone have been sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. In order to fix the liability upon the respondent it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the alleged shortage by independent evidence, and the entries in the books of account could then have been used as a piece of corroborative evidence. 'EMPEROR v. NARBADA PRASAD', AIR 1930 All 38 and T. N. S. FIRM v. V.P.S. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN', AIR 1933 Mad 756.