Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2219 of 2008)
M/s V.G. Saraf and Sons ..Appellants
Versus
H. Ranjith and Anr. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by the
respondent No.1 questioning his conviction for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the ‘Act’).
The High Court held that the conviction entered and the sentence imposed
by the Courts below were not sustainable and accordingly allowed the
revision petition.
3. The primary stand of the appellants in this appeal is that the High
Court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that Ex.P6, Bill
represents only for Rs.1,61,000/- and that the Ex.P1 cheque was for a sum
of Rs.1,86,606.95. It is pointed out that the evidence of PW-1 the
complainant was to the effect that accused was liable to pay a sum of
Rs.1,81,256.75 and the cash discount and sales tax. It is the case of the
appellants that the High Court misread the evidence of PW-1 to set aside the
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand supported
the judgment of the High Court.
5. It is noticed that the evidence of PW-1 was to the effect that the
accused was liable to pay Rs.1,81,256.75 and the cash discount and the
sales tax. It is also seen that the appellants had produced the relevant
documents to substantiate the contention that the cheque in question was
issued to discharge the liability. The documents produced included the
invoices, ledger and bills.
2
6. It is noticed that the High Court has not examined the matter in
proper perspective. The probative value of the documents produced and the
acceptability of the evidence of PW-1 has not been examined. That being
so, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter
to it to consider the matter afresh taking into account the various aspects
highlighted above.
7. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…………………..…………..J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
March 16, 2009
3