REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 634 of 2010

JARNAIL SINGH & ANR.            APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB     RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2010

BALKAR SINGH                 APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.   RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Vikram Nath, J.

1.These two appeals question the correctness

of   the   judgment   and   order   dated   14.09.2009

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.205 (SB) of

1

2002 (Sohan Lal and others Vs. The State of

Punjab) whereby, the High Court confirmed the

conviction   of   the   appellants   namely,   Jarnail

Singh, Salwant Singh and Balkar Singh under

Sections 409/109, 420/109, 467/109, 471/109,

474/109, 477­A/109 and 120­B   of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860

1

 and Sections 13(i)(d) and 7 of

the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988

2

  to

undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with

fine of Rs.1000/­ and in default of fine to undergo

additional six months imprisonment, awarded by

the Special Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and

order dated 28th January, 2002.

FACTS:

2.     Briefly   stated   the   relevant   facts   could   be

summarised as under: 

1 In short “IPC”

2 In short “PC Act”

2

(i) One Malkiat Singh, a driver of the Punjab

Roadways Depot, Muktsar made a complaint

dated 04.05.1996 to the higher officers of the

Department alleging that General Manager of

the   Punjab   Roadways   Depot,   Muktsar   in

connivance with conductor and others has

been selling and using tickets got printed on

his own and sold through his own persons,

who used to collect money for him and, as

such, has caused loss to the tune of crores of

rupees to the Depot. 

(ii) On the basis of the said complaint, the

Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muktsar

and on its basis, an FIR was registered by

Inspector, Dilbag Singh. 

3

(iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar also

forwarded   the   complaint   to   the   Secretary,

Transport Department, Chandigarh regarding

the alleged scandal. The Secretary in turn

required three Officers namely, 

(a) Mr. Darshan Singh Sandhu, Deputy

Secretary,   Forest   and   Wildlife,

Chandigarh, Muktsar (PW­20), 

(b)Mr. M.S. Sandhu, S.D.M., Zira (PW­21)

and, 

(c) Mr. Amarjit Singh Shahi, S.D.M., Bassi

Pathana (PW­22);

to make a surprise checking and submit

their report. 

(iv) These three officers made checking of the

conductors of the buses on the routes of

Delhi­Muktsar   and   Sirsa­Muktsar   on

4

11.05.1996. They took into possession old

tickets   and   tickets   value   of   which   was

increased by affixing stamps on the same, the

diaries and way­bills of drivers, and the cash

in their possession in the ticket bag. 

(v)   The   Enquiry   Committee   also   recorded

statements. The statements of conductors of

some   of   the   buses,   which   were   given   on

contract basis by the General Manager were

also recorded. 

(vi) The Enquiry Committee also recorded the

statements   of   General   Manager,   Traffic

Manager   and   the   Assistant   Mechanical

Engineer. 

(vii) The Committee was of the view that with

the connivance of the General Manager, a big

scandal was committed and the Government

5

was put to loss of lakhs of rupees by the

Inspectors   of   Muktsar   Depot   and   also

Inspectors   of   other   Depots   and   even   the

Inspectors of the flying squad and the In­

charge   of   the   flying   squad   were   also

conniving in the same. 

(viii) On the basis of the detailed enquiry

report,   a   recommendation   was   made   for

suspending   the   General   Manager,   Traffic

Manager,   Assistant   Mechanical   Engineer,

concerned Inspectors and Conductors.

(ix) On the basis of legal opinion given that a

prima facie case was made out for registering

a case under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465,

468, 467, 471, 474, 477­A and 120­B of IPC,

an FIR was registered. 

6

(x)   Accordingly,   after   due   investigation,   a

police report under Section 173(2) the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3

 was submitted

on the basis of which, cognizance was taken

and charges were framed against fifteen (15)

persons, viz.  seven (7) Conductors, four (4)

Inspectors   and   four   (4)   Managers/Senior

officials. The prosecution examined as many

as twenty­three (23) witnesses and also filed

documentary evidence.

3.   All the incriminating circumstances and the

evidence led by the prosecution were put to the

accused at the stage of section 313 CrPC. The

accused denied all the allegations and pleaded

innocence.

3 In short “CrPC”

7

4.   The   Trial   Court   vide   judgment   dated

28.01.2002   acquitted   two   Managers/Senior

officials namely, Iqbal Singh and Amrik Singh and

two Inspectors namely, Gurucharan Singh and

Kharaiti Lal. Rest of the eleven(11) accused were

convicted   by   the   Trial   Court.   Against   the

judgment of the Trial Court four (4) appeals were

filed bearing Nos.179 (SB) of 2002, 205 (SB) of

2002, 228 (SB) of 2002 and 245 (SB) of 2002. The

High   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated

14.09.2009   acquitted   the   remaining

Managers/Senior Officials namely, Jagdip Singh

Galwatti   and   Amarjeet   Singh   Sandhu.   It   also

acquitted   remaining   two   Inspectors   namely,

Sohan Lal and Teja Singh. It further acquitted

three Conductors namely, Charanjeet Singh, Iqbal

Singh   and   Sham   Lal.   One   of   the   conductors

8

namely, Jugraj Singh had died during the trial

and against him proceedings were abated. The

High Court thus confirmed the conviction of three

conductors namely, Jarnail Singh, Salwant Singh

and Balkar Singh, who are before this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record.

6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the

appellants may be summarized as follows:

(i) The enquiry report jointly submitted by the

three officers who were examined as PW­20, PW­

21   and   PW­22   were   not   placed   on   record   in

original,   an   objection   was   taken   regarding   its

admissibility as only a xerox copy was filed. The

Trial Court had taken it on record subject to the

objection by the defence that the same would be

9

admitted subject to proof and further evidence.

This order was passed by the Trial Court on 15th

February, 2001 on an application, filed by the

Public Prosecutor under Section 65(c) and the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4

, seeking permission to

give secondary evidence of the original document,

namely, the affidavit of Malkiat Singh and the

enquiry report given by the three officers. The

Trial   Court   by   the   above   order   allowed   the

application   for   permission   to   lead   secondary

evidence   of   the   above­mentioned   documents

subject to proof of its existence and subsequent

loss of the said documents. Thereafter, no further

evidence was led by the State to prove the loss of

the existence of the original documents thereby

enabling   the   Trial   Court   to   accept   the   said

explanation and permit them to lead secondary

4 In short “Evidence Act”

10

evidence.   No   further   evidence   was   led   by   the

State.

(ii) The enquiry report at best could be said to be

a   fact­finding   report   and   was   not   a   piece   of

evidence.   It   could   have   been   the   basis   for

registering the FIR and nothing more than that.

Even the Trial Court, when the true copy of the

report   was   being   exhibited,   had   recorded   the

objections of the defence in the following terms in

the statement of Arjan Singh, PW­18, who had

come to prove the said report in the following

terms: "Objected to as these documents will be

exhibited   subject   to   proof   of   the   existence   of

documents in original and loss thereof."

(iii) The Investigating Officer, Baljeet Singh Buttar,

PW­23 stated that he had received a photocopy of

the affidavit of Malkiat Singh marked with a letter

11

of Deputy Commissioner and enquiry report from

the Station House Officer, Dilbag Singh and that

he conducted the investigation. He further goes

on to say that he does not know whether the

original of the enquiry report, affidavit and other

documents were lost.

(iv)   In   support   of   the   above   submissions,   the

appellants have relied upon the judgment in the

case   of  Ashok   Dhulichand   Vs.   Madhavrao

Dube

5

.

(v) The alleged used tickets/fake tickets/tickets

bearing the nomination of higher value were taken

into custody by the Inspection Committee while

inspecting the three buses from the conductors

present on the vehicle. These seized tickets are

said to have been subsequently handed over to

5 (1975) 4 SCC 664 (Para 7 thereof)

12

the Investigating Officer or at the Police Station­

Dilbagh.   These   seized   tickets   were   never   seen

either by the Inspecting Team or by the police at

any stage. There was no segregation of the tickets

seized   by   the   Inspection   Team   from   the

conductors   of   the   three   different   buses.   Even

before the Court, these tickets were produced in

an   unsealed   form   and  are   said  to   have   been

proved by PW­8 and PW­15. Both these witnesses

were neither the witnesses of recovery nor they

had   personal   knowledge   of   said   recovery   of

tickets. They only said that these are the same

tickets which they had seen at the police station.

(vi) There is no evidence of sale of such tickets of

higher   denomination   to   any   passenger   as   no

passenger was examined during the trial. The

case   of   the   prosecution   at   best   is   that   of

13

possession   of   such   fake   tickets   and   nothing

beyond that.

(vii) Lastly, it was submitted that the excess cash

alleged   to   have   been   found   at   the   time   of

inspection also has neither been proved, nor any

evidence was led with respect to the same, nor

were any such questions put to the accused at the

stage of Section 313 CrPC. Such evidence as such

could not be read against the accused. For the

above proposition, reliance has been placed upon

the following judgments: ­

(1) Jai Dev Vs. State of Punjab

6

,

(2) Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs.

State of Maharashtra

7

,

(3)   Sujit   Biswas   Vs.   State   of

Assam

8

,

6 AIR 1973 SC 612 (Para 21)

7 (1984) 4 SCC 116 (Para 143-145)

8 (2013) 12 SCC 406 (Para 20)

14

(4)   Samsul   Haque   Vs.   State   of

Assam

9

(viii)   Lastly,   the   counsel   for   the   appellants

submitted that the prosecution failed to prove his

case not only beyond reasonable doubt but, in

fact, it completely failed to prove its case in the

absence of any legally, reliable, admissible and

unimpeachable evidence. In support of the above

submissions,   he   placed   reliance   upon   the

following judgments: 

(1)   Sarwan   Singh   Vs.   State   of

Punjab

10

,

(2) Shivaji S. Bobade Vs. State of

Maharashtra

11

,

(3)   Subhash   Chand   Vs.   State   of

Rajasthan

12

,

9 (2019) 18 SCC 161 (Paras 13, 22, 23)

10 AIR 1957 SC 637 (Para 12)

11 (1973) 2 SCC 793 (Para 19)

12 (2002) 1 SCC 702 (Para 24)

15

(4)   Sujit   Biswas   Vs.   State   of

Assam

13

,

(5) Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar

14

,

(6) State of U.P. Vs. Wasif Haider

15

.

7.On the other hand, learned counsel for the

State of Punjab has supported the judgment of

the High Court. It was submitted that conviction

of the appellants is based upon reliable, cogent

and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. It

is also submitted that PW­8 and PW­15 proved

the recovery of the tickets and further that PW­

20, PW­21 and PW­22 proved the inspection and

the enquiry report and, as such, nothing further

remains to be established for conviction of the

appellants. It is also submitted that appellants

are assailing the judgment of the High Court on

13 (2013) 12 SCC 406 (Para 13)

14 (2015) 16 SCC 369 (Page 69)

15 (2019) 2 SCC 303 (Para 22).

16

purely   technical   grounds;   the   Court   should

examine   the   substantive   material   on   record,

which has been relied upon by the High Court to

uphold the conviction. 

8.Having considered the submissions advanced

and the material on record, we now proceed to

analyse the evidence relevant for the conviction of

the appellants as also the submissions made. 

9. PW­8   is   Charanjeet   Singh,   who   at   the

relevant time was posted as Station Supervisor,

Muktsar Depot. In his examination­in­chief, he

has stated that he, along with Tarlochan Singh,

Chief Inspector, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar had

compared   the   tickets   with   the   way­bills   and

dockets. He has sought to distinguish the tickets

of Jarnail Singh and Salwant Singh as also Balkar

17

Singh. He has also sought to identify those tickets

vis­a­vis, the respective buses being conducted by

the aforesaid three conductors. On his statement,

exhibits were marked of the tickets shown to him.

However, in the cross­examination, PW­8 clearly

states that all the tickets and the way­bills shown

to him in Court were actually shown to them in

the Police Station by the police. None of these

documents were sealed at that time. We did not

know at that time that which tickets are relating

to which bus or conductor. He was not present,

when the alleged tickets and way­bills were taken

into possession by the police or anyone else from

the bus conductors. He cannot say whether these

way­bills   and   these   tickets   were   connected   or

relevant with any bus mentioned in his report.

Lastly, in the cross­examination, he states that

18

numbers of the tickets issued to the conductors

by the Head Office were note supplied to them for

comparison and checking.

10. PW­15 is Tarlochan Singh, Inspector Punjab

Roadways,   Muktsar.   He   states   in   his

examination­in­chief that on 04.08.1986, he along

with Charanjeet Singh, Station Supervisor (PW­8)

were deputed to check the vouchers, way­bills

and tickets pertaining to the three buses. After

checking the records, they have submitted their

report Ext. PW­8/A, which bears his signatures.

He further repeats the same statement as given

by Charanjeet Singh (PW­8) regarding the tickets

of the three buses, where Jarnail Singh, Salwant

Singh   and   Balkar   Singh   were   deputed   as

conductors. However, in the cross­examination,

he   admits   that   all   the   way­bills   and   tickets

19

referred to above, were shown to them in the

Police Station. None of these were sealed at that

time. He did not know which tickets or way­bills

were   relating   to   which   bus   as   they   were   not

recovered in his presence. No numbers of the

tickets   issued   by   the   Office   or   Depot   were

supplied to them for checking purposes.

11.PW­8 and PW­15 are the two witnesses relied

upon by the High Court to uphold the conviction

of   the   appellants.   From   the   perusal   of   their

statement as noted above, we are afraid that the

High Court could have recorded conviction on its

basis for the following reasons:

Firstly, there is no evidence of the seized

tickets being sealed at any stage. 

20

PW­8 and PW­15 have clearly stated that

they were not present at the  time of

recovery of these tickets. 

They have also clearly stated that these

tickets were not sealed, when they went

to the Police Station. 

They have further stated that they do not

know   whether   these   way­bills   and

tickets are connected or relevant to any

of the vehicles mentioned in their report.

They also stated that no numbers of the

tickets issued to the conductors by the

Head office, were supplied to them for

comparison in checking.

21

12.PW­20, PW­21 and PW­22 are the members

of the Inspection Committee constituted by the

Deputy Commissioner. They had checked three

buses   on   11.05.1996,   which   are   said   to   be

manned by the present appellants as conductors.

Their   statements  are   more  or  less   similar,  as

such,   they   are   not   being   repeated   but   the

contents as stated in their examination­in­chief

and in their cross­ examination are referred to

hereunder:

(i) In their examination­in­chief, it is stated

that the Committee was constituted by the

Deputy Commissioner to check buses of the

Punjab Roadways, Muktsar Depot, as there

was a complaint regarding use of already sold

tickets (Khaddar tickets) by the conductors in

22

connivance   with   the   officers   of   Muktsar

Depot of Punjab Roadways. 

(ii)   The   Members   of   the   Committee   were

Darshan Singh Sandhu, M.S. Sandhu and

Mr. Amarjeet Singh Shahi. 

(iii) They checked three buses and in one of

the buses they found a suspended conductor

was   present   in   place   of   the   regular

conductor. 

(iv) Upon enquiry, the conductors informed

that they were carrying used tickets and that

they were doing this on the orders of higher

authorities. 

(v) They took the tickets in their possession. 

(vi)   They   further   stated   that   they   cannot

identify the accused from whom they had

taken which ticket.

23

(vii)   They   made   further   enquiry   after

inspecting   three   buses   and   recorded   the

statements of the General Manager and the

Traffic   Manager   and   also   the   concerned

conductors and also inspected the relevant

records. 

(viii) Upon enquiry, it was found that even

some buses of Punjab Roadways were plying

on roads without permit and without any

time schedule. 

(ix)   It   is   specifically   stated   in   the

examination­in­chief that they could not tell

the name of the conductor, number of the

buses and the number of the Khaddar tickets

recovered from the accused conductor and

which Khaddar tickets were recovered from

which accused. 

24

(x)   It   is   further   stated   that   they   had

mentioned the details in the enquiry report

Ext.PW­20/A. 

(xi) They admitted that Ext. PW­20/A is a

photocopy. The original enquiry report was

submitted   to   the   Deputy   Commissioner,

Muktsar, who had forwarded the same to the

Secretary,   Transport   for   immediate   action

and suspension. 

(xii) They also stated that their statements

were recorded by the police. 

(xiii) Apparently, in view of the statements

given in the examination­in­chief not much of

cross­examination   was   required,   as   such,

only formal questions were put during cross­

examination, which we need not refer to here.

25

13.From the above statements of the Inspecting

Team, they failed to firstly prove the recovery of

the tickets to have been validly made. Secondly,

they also failed to prove the enquiry report as only

a photocopy was filed and objections to the same

was recorded in the statement itself, that the

same would be exhibited subject to proof of the

existence of the documents in original and loss

thereof. The prosecution did not make that effort

to prove the existence of the original and loss

thereof   in   order   to   take   an   order   for   leading

secondary evidence. Thus, no reliance could be

placed upon the enquiry report and even the High

Court has recorded that enquiry report was not a

piece of evidence. Once, the recovery of the tickets

is found to have not been made in accordance

with   law,   nor   the   seized   tickets   could   be

26

connected to the three different buses and the

conductors   manning   the   said   buses   (the

appellants), it would not be safe to rely upon the

unconfirmed   tickets   to   connect   them   to   the

appellants. Secondly, the enquiry report having

not been proved despite the State applying for

leading secondary evidence and not pursuing it

any   further,   there   appears   to   be   a   complete

vacuum of substratum on the basis of which, the

entire case was set up by the prosecution.

14.In   view   of   our   finding   that   there   is   no

evidence   to   establish   the   charge   against   the

appellants, we need not burden this judgment by

referring to  the  case laws relied  upon  by the

appellants.

15.Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed.

27

16.The judgment of the High Court and the trial

court qua the present appellants are set aside.

17.The conviction of the appellants is set aside.

They stand acquitted of all the charges levelled

against them. They are already on bail. Their bail­

bonds stand discharged.

…………..........................J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

………….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

NEW DELHI

JULY 12, 2022

28