IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2008 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Kukut Palan Society Ltd. ... Appellant Vs. Shri Babu Rama Mhalunge & Anr. Respondents Mr. Amit B. Borkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Prashant B. Advocate i/b. N.V.bandiwadekar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 30th August, 2008. DATE: 30th August, 2008. DATE: 30th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. The respondents are the original defendants. Admittedly, there used to be some business transactions between the parties. According to the plaintiff, it had supplied eggs worth Rs.75,000/- to the defendants under a credit bill No.314 dated 14.12.1995. The defendants failed to pay that amount inspite of requests. Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.31,000/- which was earlier deposited by the defendants with the plaintiff, the balance amount due was Rs.44,000/-. Adding interest on the principal amount at the rate of 18% per annum, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.67,760/-. The defendants denied that any such goods were supplied to them. The trial court relying on the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were challenged by the defendants in Regular Civil Appeal No.207 of 2005. The appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Therefore, the Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 3. Admittedly, except the entries in the account books of the plaintiff, there was no document to prove that the goods were actually supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants on the relevant date. The credit note does not bear the signature of the defendants or any of their representative. There was no document to show that the defendants had placed any order for supply of the goods nor any other documents about supply and receipt of the goods was produced before the Court. In such circumstances, the learned appellate Court relied upon Chandradhar Goswami vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd.AIR 1967 Chandradhar Goswami vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd.AIR 1967 Chandradhar Goswami vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd.AIR 1967 SC 1058 SC 1058 SC 1058 to come to conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 34 merely on the basis of entry in the books of account, the liability cannot be fastened on any person and that there has to be some further evidence to prove the liability. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the liability can be fastened merely on the basis of the certified copy of the accounts maintained by the Co-operative Society in regular course of business. However, on perusal of Section 40(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, it appears that a duly certified copy of entry in the book register or list regularly kept in the course of business and in possession of the Co-operative Society may be admissible in evidence of the existence of the entry and thereby admitted as evidence of matters and transactions therein recorded in every case and to same extent to which the relevant entry would,if produced, have been admissible to prove such matters. It means the copy duly certified, if produced shall be treated just like original, but that does not mean that on the basis of such certified copy, the liability can be fastened on the defendant. While Sec.34 of the Evidence Act requires production of the original evidence, Sectiion 40 of the Co-operative Societies Act only exempts the society from production of original and in lieu of the original certified copy can be produced. This provision is just like the provision under Sec. 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 and does not go beyond that. Section 34 makes it clear that while entries in the books of accounts are relevant and admissible, such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. This principle of law incorporated in Sec.34 is not superseded by the provisions of sec.40(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 5. In view of the above circumstances, I find no fault in the impugned judgment nor I find any substantial question of law involved in the present Appeal. 6. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)