Showing a 'course of business' automatically proves the act happened.

It only makes the act more probable as one relevant fact; courts still weigh it with other evidence, and it isn't conclusive proof.

This provision only applies to letters.

The illustrations use letters, but the rule applies broadly to any act where a regular business routine can shed light on whether that specific act was done.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 14

Existence of course of business when relevant

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. Illustrations.§

(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. 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.§

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Return Letter Office, are relevant. Admissions§

Why this exists

Courts often cannot get direct, first-hand proof of routine acts like posting a letter or recording a transaction, since no one specifically remembers or witnessed each instance. This provision, carried forward from Section 16 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows regular, established business habits to serve as circumstantial evidence, recognizing that organizations and individuals tend to follow consistent routines, and such routines make it more likely that a specific act happened in the usual way.

How courts read it

Under the identical provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 16), Indian courts have long used 'course of business' evidence in disputes over dispatch and delivery of letters, notices, and business documents, often in commercial and contractual cases. Courts have generally required proof of a clear, consistent, and established practice (not a one-off habit) before treating it as relevant, and this evidence is usually weighed alongside other proof rather than treated as conclusive.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Showing a 'course of business' automatically proves the act happened.
Fact: It only makes the act more probable as one relevant fact; courts still weigh it with other evidence, and it isn't conclusive proof.
Myth: This provision only applies to letters.
Fact: The illustrations use letters, but the rule applies broadly to any act where a regular business routine can shed light on whether that specific act was done.