M/S V.G.Saraf & Sons vs H.Ranjith & Anr
- SCC(2009) 5 SCC 141
- Neutral2009 INSC 350
- SCR[2009] 4 SCR 387
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court has set aside a concurrent finding of conviction recorded by the courts below in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court must properly examine the probative value and acceptability of the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, and cannot set aside such findings based on a misreading of the evidence without undertaking such examination; accordingly, where the High Court has failed to do so, the matter must be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the evidence in its proper perspective.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s V.G. Saraf and Sons ..Appellants
Versus
H. Ranjith and Anr. ..Respondents
JUDGMENT
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
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free