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