Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Pargat Singh on 26 September, 2022
CRA-S-1478-SB-2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1478-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 26th, 2022
...
State of Punjab
................Appellant
vs.
Pargat Singh
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Argued by: Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab - for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the respondent.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Accused - Pargat Singh son of Suba Singh, aged 61
years, an agriculturist, resident of village Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Patti,
District Amritsar, faced trial by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar,
in case FIR No. 56 dated 13.10.2000, for an offence under Section
420 IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar.
However, vide judgment dated 21.3.2006, he was acquitted of the
charge framed against him.
1 of 8
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per the prosecution
story are that, Pargat Singh, an accused in this case had lodged FIR
No. 8 dated 23.1.1998, for offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau,
Jalandhar, against one Kulwant Singh, Junior Engineer (JE) of
Punjab State Electricity Board, for allegedly demanding and
receiving illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from him. For the reason
of getting a corrupt public servant trapped, Pargat Singh had received
a reward of Rs.25,000/- from Government of Punjab.
3. However, when trial against Kulwant Singh, JE in FIR
No. 8 dated 23.1.1998, proceeded and statement of complainant
Pargat Singh was recorded, he did not support the prosecution case
and resiled from the statement made by him earlier to the police on
the basis of which FIR No. 8 dated 23.1.1998, had been recorded.
Resultantly, Kulwant Singh, JE, was acquitted, after completion of
the trial. As such FIR No. 56 dated 13.10.2000 was registered against
Pargat Singh, for cheating the State Government by dishonestly
receiving an amount of Rs.25,000/- from it. After registration of the
FIR, the accused was arrested in this case.
4. After completion of the investigation and other
formalities, challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the
Court.
5. On presentation of the challan in the Court, copies of
documents relied upon therein, were supplied to the accused free of
costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then finding a prima
2 of 8
facie case, charge for offence under Section 420 IPC was framed
against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During the course of prosecution evidence, the
prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Gurmej Singh, DSP (Vigilance), proved copy of
statement made by Pargat Singh to the Police as Exhibit PA, on the
basis of which FIR No. 8 dated 23.1.1998, had been registered
against Kulwant Singh, JE. This witness further proved his
endorsement on such statement by Pargat Singh as Exhibit PA/1;
copy of FIR registered in that case as Exhibit PA/2 and photocopies
of various memos. This witness had stated that on the basis of FIR
lodged by the present accused - Pargat Singh against Kulwant Singh,
a raid was conducted; Kulwant Singh was arrested; bribe amount of
Rs.1,000/- was recovered from him and he was challaned.
PW-2 Ranbir Singh, DSP, who had carried out the
investigation in this case, had got his examination-in-chief recorded
in part on 16.9.2003 and his remaining examination-in-chief was
deferred. Subsequently, he did not appear for getting his remaining
statement recorded.
PW-3 SI Partap Singh, had brought the summoned
record stating that a draft of Rs.25,000/- had been handed over to
Pargat Singh in presence of DSP Vigilance. He proved photocopy of
receipt as Exhibit PW 3/A.
PW-4 ASI Kamalpreet Singh, stated that on 13.10.2000,
while he was posted in Vigilance Bureau, Punjab at Amritsar, on that
3 of 8
day HC Jhirmal Singh, had produced the file of FIR No. 8 dated
23.1.1998, under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, against Kulwant Singh, alongwith decision of the Court, before
DSP Ranbir Singh, which had been taken into possession vide
recovery memo Exhibit PW 4/A. On the same day, HC Partap Singh
had produced a photocopy of the receipt Exhibit PW 2/A before DSP
Ranbir Singh, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Exhibit PW 4/B . He further stated that on 19.10.2000 Sh. S.D.
Bhatia, Manager of Punjab National Bank, Algon Kothi, produced
bank account opening form of Pargat Singh, bank account statement
and voucher and the same were taken into possession vide recovery
memo Exhibit PW 4/C. He proved account opening form as Exhibit
PW 4/D; accounts statement as Exhibit PW 4/E and voucher as
Exhibit PW 4/F.
PW-4 Ajay Kumar, (wrongly numbered) Ahlmad of the
Court of Sh. Daljit Singh Ralhan, JMIC Amritsar, proved on record
certified copy of judgment Exhibit PW 4/1, certified copy of
statement of Pargat Singh Exhibit PW 4/2.
As the prosecution, failed to conclude its evidence despite availing of
several opportunities, the same was closed by order of the Court.
7. Statements of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against the accused in the prosecution evidence, were put to him, but
he denied the allegations contending that he was innocent and had
been falsely involved in this case. Accused did not lead any evidence
4 of 8
in defence.
8. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court, vide
impugned judgment dated 21.3.2006, had acquitted the accused of
the charge framed against him.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State
of Punjab had approached this Court by way of filing an application
under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., seeking permission to file an appeal,
which was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court and vide order
dated 19.10.2006, notice of motion was issued to the respondent to
show cause as to how leave to appeal be not granted. The respondent-
accused had put in appearance through counsel.
10. Subsequently, the case was put up before the Single
Bench and vide order dated 24.7.2007, the application was accepted
and leave sought for, was granted to the State of Punjab to file the
appeal. The main appeal was admitted. Now it has matured for final
hearing.
11. I have heard, learned State counsel for Punjab, learned
counsel for the respondent, besides going through the record.
12. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that
the factors which weighed on the mind of the court in returning the
verdict of acquittal, were as follows :-
(i) No credible evidence could be produced by
the prosecution to prove that the accused had given
any false statement , in as much as, any such statement
of accused was proved on file. Therefore, it could not
5 of 8
be said that the accused had resiled from his earlier
statement. PW-1 Sh. Gurmej Singh, DSP Vigilance, in
his cross examination had stated that he has not seen
the original statement of accused Pargat Singh and in
his cross examination he admitted that Exhibit PA was
photocopy of statement of accused Pargat Singh. This
witness had further conceded in his cross examination
that Pargat Singh had not made any statement before
him. Under the circumstances, the essential
ingredients of Section 420 IPC, are not proved.
(ii) PW-2 Ranbir Singh, DSP, whose
examination-in-chief had been recorded in part, did
not appear in the Court subsequently, for completion
of his statement. Under the circumstances, the accused
was seriously prejudiced, in as much as, he could not
get any chance to test the veracity of the statement of
the witness by way of his cross examination.
Therefore, testimony of this witness could not be
taken into consideration. Resultantly, a serious blow
was dealt to the prosecution case.
(iii) No cogent and convincing evidence was
there the that accused had in fact received a sum of
Rs.25,000/- as award money for getting the FIR
registered against Kulwant Singh, JE, under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Though, PW-3 SI
6 of 8
Partap Singh, was examined by the prosecution in that
regard, but his cross-examination had been deferred
and he did not appear in the Court to face cross-
examination. Therefore, his statement is incomplete
and could not be taken into consideration.
(iv) The material documents placed on record by
the prosecution were in the form of photostat copies,
which were not sufficient to prove on record the
allegations against the accused.
13. After considering the rival contentions by learned State
counsel and learned counsel for the respondent, I do not find any
reason to set aside the impugned judgment. The trial Court has given
detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that guilt of the
accused was not established on record. The judgment can certainly be
not termed as perverse or result of erroneous or arbitrary approach.
The law is well settled that judgment of acquittal should not be
interfered merely for the reason that another view in the matter is
possible. It can certainly be not said that the impugned judgment has
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice or the same is manifestly
unjust and unreasonable. There is nothing to show that the trial Court
has misread the evidence or wrongly interpreted the law in the
process arriving at a wrong conclusion. Therefore, no reason is found
to be there for upsetting the impugned judgment by way of
acceptance of appeal.
7 of 8
14. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same
stands dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan )
th
September 26 , 2022 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
8 of 8
