Paras Mal Jain vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 January, 2002
g) Though the ledger statement (Ex DW1/2)
is a computer generated document, DW1 did not annex any certificate
under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to prove the same. However,
the same was later placed on record by DW1 in his further examination as
ex DW1/5. Ld. Counsel for complainant objected to the stage of
CC No. 5843416 Ashok Dandona Vs. Rekha Sharma Page 16 of 22
production of the certificate under section 65 B IEA (DW1/5). The
objection is however, dismissed and document Ex DW1/2 is admitted into
evidence since the production of certificate under 65 B of Indian evidence
act at a later stage during the evidence itself is not barred by any provision
of law and ld. counsel for complainant had ample opportunity to cross
examine the witness upon such certificate. Reliance is placed on the
judgment on the honorable apex court in Paras Jain v. State of
Rajasthan, MANU RH 1150 2015. Now with respect to the contents of
the statement, DW1 has deposed that the same is in congruence with the
statement as produced by the complainant till 2009. However, entry dated
08.04.2009 for Rs 1,48,330/, entry dated 08.04.2009 for Rs 2,50,250/,
entry dated 08.05.2009 for Rs 1,28,700/, entry dated 08.06.2009 for Rs
1,52,750/ and entry dated 05.06.2009 for Rs 2,76,331/ are false and
fabricated and no such bills have ever been raised upon the accused
concern. Now firstly, the said ledger statement belongs to the period
1.04.2006 to 31.03.2010 and the cheques in question belongs to the year
2013, therefore it cannot be said that no transaction took place between the
parties post 2010 taking the total liability of the accused to the amount so
claimed by the complainant.