Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Ware House Corp vs Ramphal Singh & Ors on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033920
CRR No.756 of 2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
255
CRR No.756 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
Haryana State Ware House Corporation
....Petitioner
Versus
Ramphal and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate and
Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
CRM No.7391 of 2018
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 461 days in filing the
revision petition.
Heard.
In view of averments made in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 461 days in filing the revision petition stands
condoned.
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kaithal as well as the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033920
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide which
respondents No.1 and 2 have been acquitted in FIR No.26 dated
27.02.2009, registered under Sections 408 and 120-B IPC at Police
Station Dhand, District Kaithal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.26 dated
27.02.2009 was registered under Sections 408/120-B IPC against the
respondents-accused based on the statement of the Manager, State
Warehouse, Kaul, wherein it has been alleged that a theft had occurred
at the State Warehouse, Kaul, in which 487 bags of paddy were stolen.
The theft came to light on 24.02.2009 when Smt. Shimla Devi, a Peon,
noticed that the latch of gate No.3 of Godown No.3 (South side) was
broken. Initially, the FIR (supra) was registered under Sections 457/380
IPC against unknown persons, however, the police later submitted a
cancellation report, stating that no case under Sections 457/380 IPC was
made out, and it appeared that the 487 bags of paddy were
misappropriated by an employee. Subsequently, an inquiry was
conducted against the respondents-accused, and they were found guilty
in a departmental inquiry. Following this, the Manager, Haryana
Warehousing Corporation, filed an application for re-investigation of the
case. After re-investigation, a challan under Section 408 IPC was filed
against the respondents-accused. Thereafter, investigation was brought
into motion. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were
arrested and after completion of investigation challan was prepared and
presented in the Court.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033920
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires
that the main reason for the acquittal of the accused persons is the
prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the stock
available on 21.02.2009 and on 24.02.2009, as well as the date and time
of duty of the accused, however, the relevant records, including the
attendance and stock registers, were not duly proved. The documents
were only marked and not properly authenticated, and no effort was
made by the prosecution to produce the original records in the learned
Court below. In the absence of the attendance register, it could not be
established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were on duty
during the relevant period. Furthermore, while the inquiry report
(Ex.PW9/B) was relied upon by the prosecution, it cannot be treated as
conclusive proof in a criminal case. The inquiry report may have been
sufficient for the departmental inquiry, but it is not enough to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in this criminal case.
Additionally, the prosecution's reliance on the disclosure statements
made by the accused during custody is not admissible, as per the bar
provided under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence linking the accused to
the crime, and considering the lack of essential documents, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, in the absence of substantial evidence connecting the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033920
accused to the crime led to reasonable doubt, ultimately resulting in the
acquittal of the accused persons.
4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of
acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the
settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one
points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the
accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.
Furthermore, the learned Court below has the additional advantage of
closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while
deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses.
(See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of
H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the
judgment passed in State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others passed
CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption
of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the
Court below.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out
any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Courts
below which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no
merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby
dismissed.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033920
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
10.03.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
