Q.Distinguish between Routine Checking and Vouching. State any three points of difference.

The two techniques differ in nature, skill required, and what they can actually detect.

Any three of the standard distinguishing points fully answer this.

Routine Checking vs. Vouching — three points of difference (illustrative, full comparison below):

1. Nature of the work. Routine checking is a mechanical, clerical verification of the arithmetical accuracy of casting, carry-forwards, and postings within the books themselves. Vouching is a substantive examination of the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE outside the books, which supports each individual entry.
2. Skill required. Routine checking can largely be performed by junior or clerical audit staff, following a fixed mechanical procedure. Vouching requires the auditor's own trained professional judgement and experience, since it involves assessing the genuineness, authorisation, and substance of a transaction.
3. What each detects. Routine checking detects only clerical/arithmetical errors (wrong totals, wrong carry-forwards, posting to the wrong side of an account). Vouching detects errors of PRINCIPLE, fictitious entries, unauthorised transactions, and deliberate fraud — none of which a purely arithmetical check would ever reveal, because a fraudulent entry can be arithmetically perfect.
4. (Additional point, for completeness) Direction of checking. Routine checking generally moves within the books (day book → ledger → trial balance). Vouching moves BETWEEN the books and outside documentary evidence, in both directions (books to vouchers, and vouchers to books, the latter specifically to catch omitted entries).

Students sometimes present the two as simply 'different names for the same thing' (both are forms of 'checking') — the exam specifically wants the SUBSTANTIVE distinction (what kind of defect each technique is actually capable of catching), not just a vague statement that they are both audit procedures.