M/S V.G. SARAF AND SONSversusH. RANJITH AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 350
- Decided
- 16 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court erred in setting aside the conviction without proper examination of the evidence; the order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Summary
The appellant challenged a Kerala High Court revision order that set aside his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the amount shown in the bill (Rs.1,61,000) was lower than the cheque amount (Rs.1,86,606.95). The appellant contended that the cheque was issued to discharge a larger liability of Rs.1,81,256.75, which included cash discount and sales tax, and that the complainant’s testimony and supporting invoices, ledgers and bills substantiated this liability. The High Court, however, did not examine the probative value of these documents or the credibility of the complainant’s evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach, set aside its order, and remitted the matter for fresh disposal, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside merely because the amount shown in the bill is less than the cheque amount.
- Whether the complainant’s evidence and the documents produced (invoices, ledger, bills) establishing a larger liability including cash discount and sales tax are sufficient to sustain the conviction.
- Whether the High Court erred in not examining the probative value of the documents and the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 387
~
MIS V.G. SARAF AND SONS A
V.
H. RANJITH AND ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2009
MARCH 16, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
~
JJ.]
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
s. 138 - Conviction under s. 138 set aside by High Court c
on ground that amount shown in the bill was lesser than the
cheque amount - Challenged by complainant - Documents
produced by complainant to substantiate contention that
cheque was issued to discharge the liability which included
~ cash discount and sales tax - Held: High Court did not
; D
examine the matter in proper perspective - Probative value
of documents produced and acceptability of evidence of
complainant was not examined - Matter remitted to High Court
for fresh disposal.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURl~DICTION : Criminal Appeal E
No. 468 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.07.2007 of the
High Court of Kerala C.R.P. No. 1740 of 2002(C)
Romy Chacko, for the Appellant. F
P.V. Dinesh, T.T.K. Deepak, M/S. T.T.K. Deepak & Co., for
the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
- -1 G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
387 H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R
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
B by the Courts below were not sustainable and accordingly
allowed the revision petition.
c
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
t
..
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
D the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. f
.
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
E
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.
F
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
G l- - .
consider the matter afresh taking into account the various
aspects highlighted above.
7. The appeal is allowed.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.