Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009(2) Supreme 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
M/s V.G. Saraf and Sons — Appellants
versus
H. Ranjith and Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2219 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Romy Chacko, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P.V. Dinesh, T.T.K. Deepak, M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co., Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where High Court had not examined matter in proper perspective, impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remitted back to it to consider matter afresh.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Conviction of respondent 1 for dishonour of cheque- Revision Petition thereagainst – Allowed by High Court holding that conviction entered and sentence imposed by Courts below were not sustainable –Appeal – Plea of appellant that High Court erred in acquitting accused on ground that Ex.P6, Bill represented only for Rs.1,61,000/- and that the Ex.P1 cheque was for a sum of Rs.1,86,606.95- Evidence of PW-1 was to the effect that accused was liable to pay Rs.1,81,256.75 and cash discount and sales tax – Appellants had produced relevant documents to substantiate the contention that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the liability – The documents produced included invoices, ledger and bills – High Court failed to examine matter in proper perspective – The probative value of the documents produced and acceptability of the evidence of PW-1 had not been examined – That being so, impugned order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back to it to consider matter afresh – Appeal allowed. (Para 5 to 7)
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Respondent 1 was convicted herein infor dishonour of cheque- Revision Petition thereagainst – Allowed by High Court holding that conviction entered and sentence imposed by Courts below were not sustainable.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that High Court erred in acquitting accused on ground that Ex.P6, Bill represented only for Rs.1,61,000/- and that the Ex.P1 cheque was for a sum of Rs.1,86,606.95.
       Findings of the Court :
       Evidence of PW-1 was to the effect that accused was liable to pay Rs.1,81,256.75 and cash discount and sales tax. Appellants had produced relevant documents to substantiate the contention that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the liability. The documents produced included invoices, ledger and bills-High Court failed to examine matter in proper perspective. The probative value of the documents produced and acceptability of the evidence of PW-1 had not been examined. That being so, impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remitted back to it to consider matter afresh. Appeal was allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

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.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009(2) Supreme 491SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.M/s V.G. Saraf and Sons — AppellantsversusH. Ranjith and Anr. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 468 of 2009(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2219 of 2008)Decided on : 16-03-2009

IMPORTANT POINTWhere High Court had not examined matter in proper perspective, impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remitted back to it to consider matter afresh.

2009(2) Supreme 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
M/s V.G. Saraf and Sons — Appellants
versus
H. Ranjith and Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2219 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-03-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Where High Court had not examined matter in proper perspective, impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remitted back to it to consider matter afresh.