Section 65B compliance and proof of liability govern admissibility of electronic records and restraint in acquittal appeals.

Computer-generated ledgers and account statements are electronic evidence and cannot be read in without the mandatory Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; mere exhibition of the document does not cure the defect. Once such material is excluded, the complainant fails to prove the outstanding debt or legally enforceable liability. In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interference is not warranted unless the trial court's view is perverse or unsupported by evidence; on the stated facts, no appellate interference is justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the computer-generated ledger and account statement were admissible in evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the complainant had proved the alleged liability. (ii) Whether interference with the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the computer-generated ledger and account statement were admissible in evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the complainant had proved the alleged liability.

Analysis: The account statement relied upon by the complainant was a computer printout and therefore amounted to electronic evidence. In the absence of the mandatory certificate under Section 65B, such electronic record could not be read in evidence. Mere exhibition of the document did not cure the defect in admissibility. Once the ledger was excluded, the complainant was left without reliable proof of the outstanding debt or legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The ledger was inadmissible, and the alleged liability was not proved.

Issue (ii): Whether interference with the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.

Analysis: The trial court had acquitted the respondents after finding that the complainant failed to establish the respondents' responsibility for the firm's affairs and failed to prove the debt on which the cheque was founded. On the material available, the findings could not be said to be perverse. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not justified unless the view taken by the trial court is manifestly unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The leave petition failed because the complainant did not establish the enforceable debt necessary to sustain the prosecution, and the acquittal call for no appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A computer-generated electronic record is inadmissible unless supported by the required certificate under Section 65B, and an acquittal will not be disturbed where the complainant fails to prove the foundational liability and the trial court's view is not perverse.

---