State Of Pb vs Raghbir Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5485 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Pb vs Raghbir Singh on 26 November, 2025

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004                -1

103
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRA-D-671-DBA-2004
                                                Date of Reserve:10.11.2025
                                                Date of Decision: 26.11.2025

State of Punjab                                                   ...Petitioner


                                        Vs.
Raghbir Singh                                                     ...Respondent
Coram :       Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
              Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Present:      Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab
              for the appellant-State.

              Mr. T.S Chauhan, Advocate
              Mr. Karanpreet Singh, Advocate and
              Mr. Som Nath Sood, Advocate
              for the respondent.

              Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate
              for the respondent-Amicus Curiae.

                           ***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. Challenging the legality of the judgment dated 14.01.2004, passed

by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, the State of Punjab has filed the present

appeal before this Court,whereby, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of

the charge.

2. The FIR Ex.PC was registered in the present case on the basis of

one ruqa received from Harjap Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau Unit, Fatehgarh

Sahib and the said FIR has been reproduced below:-

"At this time one ruqa from Sh. Harjap Singh DSP V.B.Unit Fatehgarh Sahib received through Ct. Harminder Singh No. 9/478 for registration of the case the contents of which are that

1 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -2

the information is received by SHO, P.S. Patiala Vigilance Bureau from secret informer that Raghbir Singh son of Jarnail Singh resident of village Marwa, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib remained posted from 11.4.1995 to 17.4.1995 as salesman in Kotla C.A, S.S Sabha, District Fatehgarh Sahib. According to him, in stock fertilizer register, Harchetan Singh Rs. 1504/-, Labh Singh Rs. 171/-, Arjan Singh Rs. 479/-, Ajmer Singh Rs. 513/-, Amarjit Kaur Rs. 4482/-, Dharam Singh Rs.2300/-, Sucha Singh Rs. 1992/-, Ujaggar Singh Rs. 2490/-, Gurdev Singh Rs.4150/-, Surjit Singh Rs.830/-, Rulda Singh Rs. 1992/- Mehar Singh Rs.830/-, Piara Singh Rs.830/-, Labh Singh Rs. 1660/-, Gurmail Singh Rs.2276/- respectively after showing the sale of fertilizer and after debiting the stock from stock register, the above mentioned persons not deposited the different cheques numbers received by him in the bank and this total amount Rs. 37998/- is used for his personal work. This amount is pending towards him. The amount of Rs.33,857.33 paise belonging to the concerned society retained by him and is not deposited in the concerned bank till today. He embezzled this amount. The sale of fertilizer cheques amounting to Rs. 37,998/- was not deposited. Thus, he has committed the offence under section 409,467,468,471 of IPC and 13(1) (C) read with 13(2)88 PC Act. After registration of the case in the above mentioned sections, its number be intimated. Ruqa is being sent through Ct. Harminder Singh No.9/478. I am busy in investigation. Sd/- Harjap Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 28.7.1998, at about 4:30 PM. On receipt, the above said case for the above said offence against the above said accused was registered and the file has been completed. Copy of FIR alongwith ruqa is being sent through coming C Harminder Singh No 9/478 to the spot for handing over the said to Sh. Harjap Singh, DSP, V.B. Unit Fatehgarh Sahib for investigation. Special reports are being sent through Ct. Darshanjit Singh No. 486 to Higher Officers.

                                  2 of 8

 CRA-D-671-DBA-2004                -3

             DDR No.13 at 5.45 PM
                                                Sd-Gurbhej Singh, MHC
                                                P.S V.B. Patiala Range,
                                                Patiala, Dated 28.07.1998

3. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation of the case was

entrusted to Kashmir Singh, D.S.P, Fatehgarh Sahib, who collected the records

of the society by way of separate memos. The sale register as well as stock

register of the fertilizer were also taken into possession by the police.

4. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was

challaned by Kashmir Singh, D.S.P, Fatehgarh Sahib and the final report was

presented before the competent Court of law.

5. After taking into consideration the challan and the other material

appendid with it, the Trial Court ordered framing of the charge under Sections

409,467,468,471 of IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act against the respondent.

6. To prove the charge against the respondent, the prosecution

examined 17 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Harjap Singh, DSP Vigilance, PW-2 Mehar

Singh, PW-3 Inderjit Kaur, Head Clerk, PW-4 Piara Singh, PW-5 Gurcharan

Kaur, PW-6 Ajmer Singh, PW-7 Dharam Singh, PW-8, Labh Singh, PW-9

Arjan Singh, PW-10 HC Gurbhej Singh, PW-11 Nabha Singh & Surjit Singh,

PW-12 Gurmel Singh, PW-13 DSP Kashmir Singh Bhinder, PW-14 Amarjit

Kaur, PW-15 HC Swaran Singh, PW-16 Kehar Singh and PW-17 Buta Singh,

Senior Assistant.

7. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the entire

incriminating evidence was put to the respondent in the shape of statement

under Section 313 Cr.P.C, but he stated that he had been falsely involved in the

3 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -4

present case.

8. In defence, the accused/respondent examined himself as DW-1 and

stated that the cheques Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 were issued by Piara Singh, Labh

Singh, Mehar Singh, Rulda Singh, Surjit Singh, Amarjit Kaur and other

persons and the cheques were signed by the persons, who had purchased

fertilizers from the society. He was working as a salesman of the society and

had issued the slips/receipts to the abovesaid members of the societies, which

were exhibited as Ex.D8 to Ex.D17. He went to the Co-operative Bank to

deposit the abovesaid cheques in the name of the societies, but the bank refused

to accept the cheques as he was already suspended by the society due to party

faction in the village. He further stated that he had produced the cheques before

the Vigilance Authority at the time of enquiry, however, they also refused to

consider the cheques and implicated him in the false case. He had also shown

the receipts/bills to the higher authorities, but again no heed was paid to the

same. He further submitted that cheques and receipts were signed by the

members of the Society to whom fertilizers were issued by him, being the sales

man.

9. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the

respondent/accused was posted as a Salesman in Kotla Co-operative

Agricultural Service Society at Fatehgarh Sahib and had embezzled an amount

of Rs.71,855.33 paise. As per the record, the outstanding balance towards 18

members amounted to Rs.37,998/-. The respondent had obtained the cheques

for the outstanding amount from the members of the society, but failed to

deposit the same in the account of the socieity and thus, had misappropriated an

amount of Rs.33,857.33 paise, which was given to him in cash. Even, while

4 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -5

acquitting the accused/respondent, the Trial Court had completely overlooked

the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent as well as

learned Amicus Curiae have vehemently opposed the submissions made by

learned State counsel and submitted that the Trial Court had correctly

appreciated the evidence in the light of the settled cannons of law. Learned

counsel further submitted that the impugned jugment was based on sound

reasons and was liable to be uphled by this Court.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record carefully.

12. In the present case, the respondent/accused was charge-sheeted by

the Trial Court for commiting the offence under Sections 409,467,468,471 of

IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

however, we agree with the Trial Court that the basic ingredients of the alleged

offences were completely missing in the present case. Even, it has been alleged

that the respondent had mis-appropriated the funds of the society, which were

entrusted to him. However, the prosecution had utterly failed to prove that

there was any entrustment of any sort of funds to the respondent, relating to the

society. It is an admitted case of PW-7, Dharam Singh, PW-9 Arjan Singh and

PW-10 HC, Gurbhej Singh that the records of the society had to be maintained

by the Secretary of the society. Even, PW-17, Buta Singh, Senior Assistant

admitted that the affairs of the society were entrused to the Secretary of the

Society and the respondent was admittedly never appointed as Secretary. Apart

from that, the respondent himself appeared as DW-1 and clearly stated that

cheques Ex.D1 to D-7 were part of the record, which were in the name of the

5 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -6

socieity and had been admittedly signed by various prosecution witnesses.

Apart from that, the bills were also exhibited as Ex. D-8 to Ex.D17 and the

same were also signed by the members of the Society. Consequently, it can

never be stated that respondent was beneficiary of the amount, which was

allegedly mis-appropriated. Rather, it is apparent from the record that the

cheques were issued in the name of the Society and the respondent could not

have mis-appropriated the amount. Apart from that, the prosecution also did not

lead any evidence to show that any amount was ever transferred in the account

of the respondent or he had mis-appropriated the amount in question. Still

further, there was no evidence to show that any document was forged and

fabricated or even any bribe was paid or accepted by the respondent. Still

further, even though the respondent was part of the society, being a salesman,

but as per the prosecution version, the society was being run by the Secretary

and a Secretary namely Swaran Singh was also suspended for embezzlement of

funds. Even, it was never duty of the respondent to maintain the accounts of the

society. However, it appears that the prosecution was ordered only against the

present respondent after a delay of more than three years.

13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

"Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2018 AIR (Supreme

Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as follows:-

"14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this court as expressed in

6 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -7

Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR (Criminal) 35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -

"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."

14. 15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(3) RCR

(Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:

"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view

7 of 8

CRA-D-671-DBA-2004 -8

other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."

15. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal fails and

is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.

16. Case property, if any, be dealt with, and destroyed after the expiry

of period of limitation for filing the appeal, in accordance with law.

17. The Trial Court record be sent back.

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 26.11.2025 hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

8 of 8