Existence of course of business when relevant – Section 16 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevance of the existence of a course of business when there is a question whether a particular act was done. The section states that:
When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.
This means that if there is a regular practice or routine that is followed in a particular business or organization, then the existence of that practice or routine can be used as evidence to show that a particular act was or was not done.
For example, if the question is whether a particular letter was posted, the fact that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post would be relevant evidence. Similarly, if the question is whether a particular letter reached a particular person, the fact that it was posted in due course and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office would be relevant evidence.
Section 16 of Indian Evidence Act – Existence of course of business when relevant evidence in a variety of different types of cases, including:
- Commercial disputes
- Contract disputes
- Employment disputes
- Family law disputes
- Criminal cases
For example, in a commercial dispute, the existence of a course of business may be relevant to show that a particular contract was formed or that a particular term of a contract was agreed upon. In an employment dispute, the existence of a course of business may be relevant to show whether an employee was discriminated against or whether they were wrongfully terminated. In a family law dispute, the existence of a course of business may be relevant to show whether a child support obligation was met or whether a parent was fit to have custody of their child. In a criminal case, the existence of a course of business may be relevant to show whether a defendant had the necessary intent to commit a crime.
When determining whether the existence of a course of business is relevant to a particular case, the court will consider the following factors:
- The nature of the act in question
- The circumstances surrounding the act
- The regularity or routine of the course of business
- The probative value of the evidence
The court will also weigh the probative value of the evidence against the risk of prejudice to the parties involved in the case.
Here are some examples of how Section 16 of Evidence Act – Existence of course of business when relevant has been applied in practice:
- In the case of State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh (AIR 1994 SC 672), the Supreme Court of India held that the fact that it was the ordinary course of business for a bank to keep a record of all transactions was relevant evidence to show that a particular transaction took place.
- In the case of Ramachandra v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 SC 2501), the Supreme Court of India held that the fact that it was the ordinary course of business for a post office to keep a record of all letters sent and received was relevant evidence to show that a particular letter was posted and received.
- In the case of R v. Matthews ([1980] 71 Cr App R 280), the House of Lords held that the fact that it was the ordinary course of business for a shop to keep a record of all sales was relevant evidence to show that a particular sale took place.
Existence of course of business when relevant – Section 16 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an important provision of law that allows courts to consider evidence of a course of business when determining whether a particular act was done. This can be helpful in a variety of different types of cases, as it can provide evidence of what is more likely to have happened.