{"id":63891,"date":"2011-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-26T03:05:35","modified_gmt":"2018-03-25T21:35:35","slug":"anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                            1\n\n\n\n                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n\n                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  1413-1414 OF 2011 \n\n                (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1830-1831 of 2009)\n\n\n\n\nAnil Sachar &Anr.                                       .....Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                     Versus\n\n\nM\/s. Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.  \n\n& Ors. etc.                                             .....Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ANIL R. DAVE, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Being   aggrieved   by   the   common   Judgment   delivered   in   Criminal   Appeal <\/p>\n
Nos.379-MA   of   2007   and   381-MA   of   2007   dated   16th  December,   2008   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the original complainants have filed <\/p>\n
these appeals.  By virtue of the aforestated judgment and  order,  the High Court has <\/p>\n
confirmed the Orders dated 4th May, 2007 passed in Criminal Complaint Nos. 46 and <\/p>\n
                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
99 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana whereby the accused in <\/p>\n
the aforestated complaints had been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The facts leading to the present litigation in a nut shell are as under:\n<\/p>\n
4.     On   23rd  February,   1999,   Respondent   no.4   –   Munish   Jain,   a   Director   of   M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.     had   given   in   all   four   cheques     for   different   amounts   to   Anil <\/p>\n
Sachar,     partner   of   M\/s.   Rati   Woolen   Mills   who   are   appellant   Nos.   1   and   2 <\/p>\n
respectively.  According to the case of the complainants, the said cheques were given <\/p>\n
to M\/s. Rati Woolen Mills,  of which appellant no.1 is a partner,   in consideration of  <\/p>\n
supply of  goods to M\/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The aforestated cheques, which had been given by Munish Jain as Director of <\/p>\n
M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd.,   had not been honoured and due to dishonour of the said  <\/p>\n
cheques,   the  complainant,  namely,   Anil  Sachar,    as  a  partner   of  M\/s.   Rati  Woolen  <\/p>\n
Mills   had   issued   notice   as   required   under   the   provisions   of   Section   138   of   the <\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act  (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).  In spite of the said  <\/p>\n
notice,   the   complainant   was   not   paid   the   amount   covered   under   the   aforestated <\/p>\n
cheques and, therefore,  complaints had been filed against the present respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
6.     The case of the present respondents before the trial court as well as before the  <\/p>\n
High Court was that the dispute was of a civil nature and with an oblique motive it  <\/p>\n
was given a colour of criminal litigation.  The said reply had been given especially in  <\/p>\n
view of the fact that the complaint  had also been filed making out a case against the  <\/p>\n
accused under the provisions of Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The   case   of   the   complainants     was   that   M\/s.   A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.   is   a   sister  <\/p>\n
concern   of   M\/s.   Shree   Nath   Spinners   Pvt.   Ltd.   and   the   aforestated   cheques   were  <\/p>\n
given   by   Munish   Jain   towards   dues   of   M\/s.   Shree   Nath   Spinners   Pvt.   Ltd.   as   a <\/p>\n
Director of M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. After considering the evidence adduced and the  <\/p>\n
arguments made before the trial court, the trial court acquitted the accused for the  <\/p>\n
reason   that   the   goods   had   been   supplied   by   the   complainants   to   M\/s.   Shree   Nath <\/p>\n
Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and the cheques had not been given by M\/s. Shree Nath Spinners  <\/p>\n
Pvt. Ltd. but they had been   given by M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd.     As M\/s. Shree Nath  <\/p>\n
Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. are two different legal entities and as <\/p>\n
there   was   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   the   cheques   were   given   by   M\/s.   A.T.\n<\/p>\n
Overseas Ltd. in consideration of goods supplied by the complainants to M\/s. Shree <\/p>\n
Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., the conclusion was that there was no liability of M\/s. A.T.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
Overseas Ltd. and, therefore, dishonour of the aforestated cheques would not make <\/p>\n
signatory of the cheques from the account of M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd.   liable under <\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.     Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First <\/p>\n
Class, Ludhiana, dated 4th  May, 2007,   criminal appeals were filed before the High <\/p>\n
Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh,   but   the   said   appeals   have   been <\/p>\n
dismissed  and, therefore, the original complainants have approached this Court by  <\/p>\n
way of these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
9.     It may be noted here that during the pendency of the proceedings,   Mohinder  <\/p>\n
Jain,     accused\/respondent   no.3   expired   and,   therefore,     deleted   from   the   array   of <\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Mr.   Nidhesh   Gupta,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   complainants <\/p>\n
mainly   submitted   that   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate   as   well   as   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
committed   an  error  by  acquitting  the  accused     simply   because  the  goods had  been <\/p>\n
supplied to M\/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. whereas the cheques were given by  <\/p>\n
M\/s.   A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.     He   submitted   that   both   the   concerns,   referred   to <\/p>\n
hereinabove, are sister concerns having common Directors and, therefore,  the courts <\/p>\n
                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
below ought to have lifted the corporate veil so as to find out the realities.   He also  <\/p>\n
submitted that Munish Jain, who had signed the aforesaid cheques was Director in  <\/p>\n
both   the   sister   concerns   viz.   M\/s.   Shree   Nath   Spinners   Pvt.   Ltd.   and   M\/s.   A.T.\n<\/p>\n
Overseas Ltd.  Moreover, he submitted that once the cheques had been issued by the  <\/p>\n
accused, as per provisions of Section 139 of the Act, burden was on the accused to <\/p>\n
show   that   there   was   no   consideration.   So   as   to   substantiate   his   aforestated <\/p>\n
submission,   the learned counsel relied upon the Judgments delivered by this Court <\/p>\n
in  ICDS Ltd.  v.    B
\n                        eena Shabeer and Anr.     [2002(6) SCC 426],  K.K. Ahuja  v.    V<\/a>
\n                                                                                                        .K.\n<\/p>\n
Vora   and   Anr.,  [2009(10)   SCC   48]     and  K.N.   Beena    v.     Muni\n                                                                                     yappan   and   Anr.  \n\n\n[2001(8) SCC 458].\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
11.    For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel strenuously submitted that the  <\/p>\n
High Court had erred in confirming the orders of acquittal because upon lifting the <\/p>\n
corporate veil,  the correct position could have been revealed and the correct position <\/p>\n
according   to   the   learned   counsel   was   that   the   cheques   had   been   given   by   a   sister <\/p>\n
concern, namely,  M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd.  in consideration of the goods supplied to <\/p>\n
M\/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.   The learned counsel also drew our attention to <\/p>\n
the fact that there were several inter se transactions between the above-named two  <\/p>\n
sister   concerns   and,   therefore,     the   courts   below   ought   to   have   believed   that   the  <\/p>\n
                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
payment had been made by one company for another company and the courts below  <\/p>\n
ought   to   have   believed   that   there   was   a   consideration   behind   issuance   of   the  <\/p>\n
aforestated two cheques.   He also draw our attention to the relevant evidence which  <\/p>\n
was adduced by the complainants to establish the aforestated facts.\n<\/p>\n
12.    On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents <\/p>\n
supported the reasons recorded by the courts below while acquitting the accused.  He <\/p>\n
mainly   submitted   that   the   cheques   had   been   issued   by   M\/s.   A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.   to <\/p>\n
whom no goods had been supplied by the complainants and, therefore, there was no  <\/p>\n
consideration.  In absence of any consideration, according to the learned counsel, the <\/p>\n
accused   could   not   have   been   held   guilty   and,   therefore,   the   courts   below   rightly <\/p>\n
acquitted the respondents.  The learned counsel relied upon the judgments delivered  <\/p>\n
in Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd. and Anr.<\/a> [2010(5) SCC 306]  and in <\/p>\n
Rahul   Builders    v.  Arihant   Fertilizers   &   Chemicals   and   Anr.<\/a>  [2008(2)   SCC   321].\n<\/p>\n
According   to   him,   even   if   two   companies   are   having   common   Directors,   both <\/p>\n
companies would remain different legal entities and, therefore, the submission made  <\/p>\n
on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   both   the   companies   are   sister   concerns   and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   one   company   should   be   made   liable   for   the   dues   of   another   company  <\/p>\n
cannot be sustained.  He further submitted that there was nothing to substantiate the  <\/p>\n
                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
submission that M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had made payment in consideration of goods <\/p>\n
supplied  to  M\/s.  Shree  Nath Spinners Pvt.  Ltd.      He,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  <\/p>\n
appeals be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
13.    Upon hearing the learned counsel  appearing for the parties and upon perusal <\/p>\n
of  the  record   pertaining  to  the  cases   and  the  impugned   judgment   delivered   by   the  <\/p>\n
High Court confirming the order passed by the trial court and upon considering the <\/p>\n
judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the decision rendered  <\/p>\n
by the courts below cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
14.    Upon   perusal   of   the   record,   we   find   that   the   complainants   had   established <\/p>\n
before the trial court that there was an understanding among the complainants and  <\/p>\n
the accused that in consideration of supply of goods to M\/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt.\n<\/p>\n
Ltd.,       M\/s.   A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.   was   to   make   the   payment.       The   aforestated  <\/p>\n
understanding   was   on   account   of   the   fact   that   directors   in   both   the   aforestated <\/p>\n
companies were common and the aforestated companies were sister concerns.   In the <\/p>\n
circumstances, it can be very well said and  it has been proved that in consideration <\/p>\n
of supply  of  goods  to  M\/s.  Shree  Nath  Spinners Pvt.  Ltd., M\/s.  A.T.  Overseas  Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
had made the payment.  In view of the above fact,  in our opinion,  the trial court was  <\/p>\n
                                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
not   right   when   it     came   to   the   conclusion   that   there   was   no   reason   for   M\/s.   A.T.\n<\/p>\n
Overseas Ltd. to give the cheques to the complainants.  The aforestated facts are very  <\/p>\n
well   reflected   in   the   statement   made   in   the   complaint   and   in   the   evidence   by   the  <\/p>\n
complainant which have not been controverted.   Paras 2 and 3 of the complaint are <\/p>\n
reproduced herein below:\n<\/p>\n
       “2.     That the accused had business dealings with the complainant and <\/p>\n
       supply  of the goods which duly supplied by my client vide separate bills  <\/p>\n
       from   time   to   time   which   was   duly   acknowledged   by   the   accused   no.   5 <\/p>\n
       Varun Jain director of the accused no. 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       3.      That in order to discharge the liability of making the payment, the <\/p>\n
       accused   issued   following   two   cheques   in   favour   of   the     complainant <\/p>\n
       through their sister  concern M\/S A.T. Overseas Ltd. i.e. Accused No. 1 <\/p>\n
       and   the   cheques   were   duly   signed   by   Mr.   Munish   Jain   one   of   its  <\/p>\n
       directors”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
15.    The trial court materially erred while coming to a conclusion  that in criminal <\/p>\n
law   no   presumption can be   raised with regard to consideration   as no   goods had  <\/p>\n
been supplied by the  complainants to M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd..  The trial court ought  <\/p>\n
to have considered provisions of  Section 139 of the Act, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “139.  Presumption in favour of holder – It shall be presumed, unless the  <\/p>\n
       contrary  is proved,   that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of  <\/p>\n
       the nature referred to in Section 138   for the discharge,   in whole or in  <\/p>\n
       part, of any debt or other liability.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
16.    According to the provisions of the aforestated section,   there is a presumption  <\/p>\n
with   regard   to   consideration     when   a   cheque   has   been   paid   by   the   drawer   of   the  <\/p>\n
cheque.    In   the  instant  case,    M\/s.   A.T.  Overseas   Ltd.    paid  the  cheque  which  had <\/p>\n
been duly signed by one of its Directors, namely,  Munish Jain.   Munish Jain is also a  <\/p>\n
Director in M\/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.. As stated hereinabove, both are sister  <\/p>\n
concerns   having   common   Directors.         Extracts   of   books   of   accounts   had   been <\/p>\n
produced before the trial court so as to show that both the companies were having  <\/p>\n
several transactions and the companies used to pay on behalf of each other to other <\/p>\n
parties or their creditors.    The above fact strengthens the  presumption  to the effect <\/p>\n
that   M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had paid the cheques to the complainants, which had <\/p>\n
been  signed   by  Munish  Jain,  in  consideration  of  goods  supplies to  M\/s Shree   Nath  <\/p>\n
Spinners   Pvt.   Ltd.       Of   course,   the   presumption   referred   to   in   Section   139   is  <\/p>\n
rebuttable.    In the instant case,  no  effort was made by Munish Jain or any of the  <\/p>\n
Directors of M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. for rebuttal of the aforestated presumption and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   the   presumption   must   go   in   favour   of     the   holder   of   the   cheques.\n<\/p>\n
Unfortunately,   the   trial   court   did   not   consider   the   above   facts   and     came   to   the <\/p>\n
conclusion that  there was no consideration for the cheques which had been given by  <\/p>\n
M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. to the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
17.     It is true that a limited company is a separate legal entity  and its directors are  <\/p>\n
different   legal   persons.     In   spite   of     the   aforestated   legal   position,     in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
provisions of Section 139   of the Act and the understanding which had been arrived <\/p>\n
at among  the   complainants and the accused,    one can safely  come  to a conclusion  <\/p>\n
that the cheques signed by Munish Jain had been given by M\/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. to  <\/p>\n
the complainants in discharge of  a debt or  a liability,  which had been incurred by  <\/p>\n
M\/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
18.     We   may   also   refer   to   the   judgment   delivered   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of  <\/p>\n
ICDS Ltd.  (supra).     In the said judgment this Court has referred to the nature of  <\/p>\n
liability which is incurred by the one who is a drawer of the cheque.   If the cheque is  <\/p>\n
given towards any liability or debt which might have been incurred even by someone  <\/p>\n
else,  the person who is a drawer of the cheque can be made liable under Section 138  <\/p>\n
of the Act.   The relevant observation made in the aforestated judgment is as under:\n<\/p>\n
        ” The words “any cheque” and “other liability” occurring in Section 138 <\/p>\n
        are   the   two   key   expressions   which   stand     as   clarifying   the   legislative <\/p>\n
        intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions  <\/p>\n
        of   the   statute.     These   expressions   leave   no   manner   of   doubt   that   for <\/p>\n
        whatever   reason   it   may   be,   the   liability   under   Section   138   cannot   be <\/p>\n
        avoided in the event the cheque stands returned by the banker  unpaid. <\/p>\n
        Any contra-interpretation would defeat  the intent of the legislature.  The <\/p>\n
        High Court got carried away by the issue of guarantee and guarantor’s <\/p>\n
        liability and thus has overlooked the true intent and purport of   Section <\/p>\n
        138 of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         ……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
       The language, however, has been rather specific as regard the intent of <\/p>\n
       the legislature.  The commencement of the section stands with the words <\/p>\n
       “where   any   cheque”.       The   above   noted   three   words   are   of   extreme  <\/p>\n
       significance,     in   particular,     by   reason   of   the   user   of   the   word   “any”   –  <\/p>\n
       the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque <\/p>\n
       is drawn  on  an account maintained   by  him  with  a banker  in  favour  of <\/p>\n
       another   person   for   the   discharge   of   any   debt   or   other   liability,     the <\/p>\n
       highlighted   words   if   read   with   the   first   three   words   at   the <\/p>\n
       commencement   of   Section   138,     leave   no     manner   of   doubt   that   for <\/p>\n
       whatever   reason   it   may   be,   the   liability   under  this  provision  cannot  be <\/p>\n
       avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The  <\/p>\n
       legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole <\/p>\n
       or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well.   This  <\/p>\n
       aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the High Court, neither  <\/p>\n
       been dealt with or even referred to in the impugned judgment.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
19.    Looking to the facts of the case and law on the subject,  we are  of the view that <\/p>\n
all the four cheques referred to in both the complaints are presumed to have   been  <\/p>\n
given   for consideration.       The  presumption  under Section 139  of  the  Act has not  <\/p>\n
been rebutted by the accused and, therefore,   we are of the view that the trial court  <\/p>\n
wrongly acquitted the accused by taking a view  that there was no consideration for <\/p>\n
which  the  cheques  were  given by  Munish  Jain to the  complainants.     The  aforesaid  <\/p>\n
incorrect view was wrongly confirmed by the High Court.     We, therefore, set aside <\/p>\n
the acquittal order and convict accused Munish Jain under Section 138 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.    In view of  the aforestated facts  and legal position, in our opinion, the accused <\/p>\n
ought to have been held guilty,  especially accused no. 4, Munish Jain who had signed  <\/p>\n
                                                                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
all   the   cheques   for   M\/s   A.T.   Overseas   Ltd.       We,     therefore,   hold   Munish   Jain, <\/p>\n
accused   no.   4  and  respondent   no.  4   herein,  in   both  the  cases     guilty   of   the   offence  <\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
21.         Accused Munish Jain was acquitted by the trial court and the High Court has <\/p>\n
confirmed   the   acquittal,   which   is   being   set   aside   by   this   Court   by   allowing   these  <\/p>\n
appeals.  In the circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 235(2) of the Criminal  <\/p>\n
Procedure Code, this Court will have to give an opportunity of being heard to him on  <\/p>\n
the question of sentence.  We, therefore, adjourn the case to 2.8.2011 for hearing the <\/p>\n
accused Manish Jain on the question of sentence.   If on that day he fails to appear  <\/p>\n
before this Court, we shall hear his counsel on the question of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           …………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                                                            ………………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
19th July,  2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                REPORTABLE\n\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  1413-1414 OF 2011 \n\n\n\n\nAnil Sachar &Anr.                                        .....Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                     Versus\n\n\nM\/s. Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.  \n\n& Ors. Etc.                                                .....Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                         O R D E R \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   on   the <\/p>\n
question   of   sentence.       Having   gone   through   the   records,   we   find   that   Mr. <\/p>\n
Munish Jain, against whom the notice was issued on the question of sentence has  <\/p>\n
died.  Accordingly, so far he is concerned, the matter stands abated.\n<\/p>\n
       There is yet one more accused in the case, apart from the company, who <\/p>\n
was also impleaded as a party in the present proceedings.   The said Director of <\/p>\n
the company is Mr. Varun Jain.\n<\/p>\n
       We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   on   the <\/p>\n
question of sentence.  Considering the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable  <\/p>\n
                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
Instruments   Act,   we   consider   that   imposition   of   fine   of   an   amount   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
10,00,000\/- (Rupees ten lacs only) would meet the ends of justice in the present <\/p>\n
case.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, impose <\/p>\n
a fine of Rs. 10,00,000\/- (Rupees ten lacs only) on the respondent payable to the  <\/p>\n
appellants\/complainants by way of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
       At  this  stage,   the   counsel   appearing   for   the  respondent   has  handed  over <\/p>\n
drafts amounting  to Rs.  10,00,000\/-, payable to the appellants\/complainants,  to <\/p>\n
the   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants\/complainants,   who   receives   the   said <\/p>\n
amount which is imposed as fine and payable to the appellants.  Fine having been <\/p>\n
paid and received brings the litigation to an end.\n<\/p>\n
       In that view of the matter, nothing further survives in these appeals, which <\/p>\n
stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       …………………………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                                       (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                                         ……………………………………………….J<\/p>\n
                                                          (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI<\/p>\n
AUGUST 17, 2011<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011 Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1413-1414 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1830-1831 of 2009) Anil Sachar &Anr. …..Appellants Versus M\/s. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\\\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2972,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\\\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\\\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011"},"wordCount":2972,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011","name":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& ... on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T21:35:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-sachar-anr-vs-ms-shree-nath-spinners-p-ltd-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil Sachar & Anr vs M\/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& … on 19 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63891","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}