Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act: Existence of Course of Business When Relevant
An established business routine may help a court decide whether a particular act, such as dispatching or delivering a letter, actually occurred. Former Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 addressed this rule. Its corresponding current provision is Section 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Original text
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.
Corresponding current provision: BSA Section 14
Section 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, titled Existence of course of business when relevant, retains the principle that evidence of an established course of business is relevant to deciding whether a particular act was performed in accordance with that routine.
The expression course of business refers to a regular, established method of carrying out activities in an office, business or organisation. Its relevance depends on whether that practice would naturally have included the disputed act.
When is a course of business relevant?
The rule allows a court to consider the ordinary practice followed in a business when direct evidence of a particular act is unavailable or disputed. It is important to establish:
- A specific act in dispute: For example, whether a notice was dispatched, a document processed or an item sent.
- A regular procedure: Evidence that the organisation routinely performed the act in a particular way.
- A link to the particular transaction: Evidence that the relevant document or item entered the usual process.
- Reliable supporting records: Registers, dispatch books, tracking records, correspondence or credible testimony about the routine.
Relevance is not conclusive proof. The court must assess the reliability of the routine, whether it was followed on the particular occasion and any contradictory evidence. Rules governing statutory presumptions or service of notices may also apply independently.
Both original statutory illustrations
Illustration (a): Dispatch of a letter
The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched.
The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.
Explanation: The usual collection-and-posting practice, together with proof that the specific letter was placed for collection, is evidence bearing on whether it was dispatched.
Illustration (b): Receipt of a letter
The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.
The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.
Explanation: Evidence of proper posting and non-return can support an inference that a letter reached the addressee. The reference to the Dead Letter Office reflects the historical postal terminology of the original illustration.
Business routines, postal evidence and electronic records
Modern business practices may involve courier tracking, automated dispatch systems, email servers, digital workflow logs and other electronic records. Such material may help show an established procedure and connect a particular act to that procedure. However, the admissibility and proof of electronic or digital records are governed by additional provisions of the BSA, including Sections 61 to 63 where applicable.
For example, an email template or general policy alone does not necessarily establish that a particular email was sent. A reliable dispatch log or transmission record may provide a stronger link. Similarly, proof that an organisation normally sends letters is not a substitute for proving that the disputed letter entered its dispatch process.
The course-of-business rule should also be distinguished from statutory presumptions relating to communications or service. Those presumptions have their own conditions and should be assessed separately.
Which evidence law applies after 1 July 2024?
Section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 while saving specified applications, trials, inquiries, investigations, proceedings and appeals pending immediately before the commencement of the new law. The applicable statute depends on the status of the particular proceeding.
For related concepts, see former Section 14 on state of mind and former Section 15 on accidental or intentional acts.
Frequently asked questions
What is Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act?
It makes an established course of business relevant when deciding whether a particular act was done in accordance with that routine.
Which provision replaced Section 16 of the Evidence Act?
Section 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is the corresponding provision on the existence of a course of business.
Does posting a letter conclusively prove its delivery?
No. Evidence of routine posting and non-return may support an inference of delivery, but its weight depends on the circumstances and any contrary evidence.
Can electronic business records establish a routine?
They may help establish a routine when relevant and properly proved, subject to the applicable rules for electronic or digital records.
Does the Indian Evidence Act still apply to pending proceedings?
Section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam contains repeal and savings rules for specified proceedings pending immediately before 1 July 2024.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code (see Sections 14, 61-63 and 170).
- India Code official legislation database (search for the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
- Ministry of Home Affairs - New Criminal Laws.
This article provides general legal information and does not replace advice on the facts of a particular case.