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

J U D G M E N T

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