Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S V.G. SARAF AND SONS versus H. RANJITH AND ANR.

Decided
16 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 387 · 2009 INSC 350
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 387, margin G

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.

pp. 387–388, margin G

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.

p. 388, margin B

4

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

p. 388, margin D

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.

p. 388, margin D

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.

p. 388, margin F

7

The appeal is allowed. D.G. Appeal allowed.

p. 388, margin G