M/S V.G.Saraf & Sons vs H.Ranjith & Anr

Supreme Court16 March 2009Asok Kumar Ganguly · Arijit Pasayat

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

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

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.

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

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