V.G.Saraf & Sons Vs. H.Ranjith & ANR.  INSC 526 (16 March 2009)
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
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
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').
Court held that the conviction entered and the sentence imposed by the Courts
below were not sustainable and accordingly allowed the revision petition.
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.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court.
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.
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
The appeal is allowed.
....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)