[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gabbar Singh Alias Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
241
CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2026
Gabbar Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Ashim Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2020 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, in Criminal Case No.86
dated 14.06.2018 whereby the revisionist-petitioner had been convicted for
commission of offences punishable under Section 473 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 in case bearing FIR No. 91 dated 18.06.2017 registered under
Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and Section 473 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sardulgarh, as well as the judgment dated
09.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in Criminal
Appeal No.10 of 18.03.2020 vide which the appeal filed by the revisionist-
petitioner has been dismissed. The revisionist-petitioner has been sentenced
as under:-
1 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
Under Section Sentence
473 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for 01 year and fine
of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further
undergo SI for a period of 5 days.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that as per the case of the prosecution, on 18.06.2017, HC Ujjagar Singh,
along with other police officials, was on patrolling on the government
vehicle bearing registration no. PB-31C-9345 being driven by HC Harpal
Singh, in search of suspected persons. When they reached near the
cremation ground of village Heengna, a secret information was received to
the effect that Gurmit Singh alias Preet son of Buta Singh and Gabbar Singh
son of Bhola Singh, both residents of Mirpur Khurd were in the habit of
selling country made liquor in Punjab after bringing the same from Haryana
and hence, were causing financial loss to the contractors of Punjab. It was
informed that the liquor was brought in a Maruti car of white colour after
changing its number plate and at the relevant point in time, a number plate
having no. HR-22A 0361 had been affixed on the same. It was informed
that in the event of a nakabandi at an appropriate place, they may be
apprehended along with illicit liquor and the Maruti car. Finding the
information to be credible, a ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis
of which an FIR was registered against the accused. A check-post was laid
in the area of village Bhagwanpur Hingna and a Maruti car of white colour
having No. HR-22A-2361 was seen coming from the side of village
Lohgarh, in which two Hindu gentlemen had been sitting. The car was
2 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
signalled to stop. The driver of the car stopped the car at some distance and
both occupants tried to slip away; however, the driver of the car was
apprehended while the person sitting alongside the driver's seat managed to
escape. HC Bant Singh identified the fleeing person as Gabbar Singh son of
Bhola Singh, resident of Mirpur Khurd. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his
name as Gurprit Singh @ Preet son of Buta Singh, resident of Mirpur Khurd.
During the checking of the car, 10 boxes containing a total of 120 bottles of
country-made liquor of Haryana make "Special Malta", were recovered. The
contraband as well as the evidence were taken into possession vide separate
recovery memos. No document was found from the Maruti car; however,
two number plates on which HR-22A-0361 had been inscribed were
recovered from underneath the seat of the car. A rough site plan was
prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused/Gurprit Singh
was arrested and his personal search was conducted.
3. On 14.08.2017, the revisionist-petitioner was arrested and his
personal search was conducted. After completion of the investigation, the
final report was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court and documents
were supplied to the accused-petitioner free of costs.
4. Finding that a prima facie case is made out, the petitioner was
charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 61
(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and under Section 473 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and the contents of the same were read over and explained
to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the
following eight witnesses:
PW-1 HC Bant Singh.
PW-2 HC Ujjagar Singh.
PW-3 ASI Major Singh.
PW-4 C. Alamjit Singh.
PW-5 Om Parkash Sihag, Nazer, office of SDM, Fatehabad.
PW-6 HC Nachattar Singh
PW-7 ASI Deep Singh
PW-8 Balvir Singh
6. No other prosecution witness/evidence was examined or
produced. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
7. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances
and evidence appearing on record were put to him. The petitioner denied the
allegations in its entirety, describing the prosecution case and evidence as
false and fabricated, and asserted his innocence. However, no defence
evidence/witness was produced by the petitioner during his defence
evidence.
8. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for
the parties, the testimonies of witnesses, and the evidence placed on record,
the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, vide judgment and order
4 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
of quantum of sentence dated 18.02.2020, held the petitioner guilty of
offences punishable under Section 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 18.03.2020
before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. However,
vide judgment dated 09.10.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mansa, dismissed the aforesaid appeal and consequently affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 18.02.2020
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh.
Hence, aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of quantum
of sentence, the present revision petition has been preferred.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
was not apprehended at the spot and that he was neither the driver nor the
owner of the Maruti Car in question. He further contends that the petitioner
has no connection with the alleged commission of the offence since there is
no evidence linking the petitioner with the recovered vehicle and thus both
the trial Court and the Appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner
under Section 473 of the IPC. He thus prays that the conviction be set aside
and the petitioner be acquitted of the offence.
11. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contends that both
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner for
offence under Section 473 of the IPC, as the two number plates on which
HR-22A-0361 was inscribed were found underneath the seat of the car in
5 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
which the petitioner was travelling with the driver Gurprit Singh, whereas
false number plate HR-22A-2361 was being used on the vehicle. The
petitioner hence used the false number plates for nefarious purposes and that
an offence under Section 473 would be made out in the said circumstances.
He prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.
12. No other argument has been made nor any other judgment
cited.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have
gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.
14. The key issue that has come up for consideration before this
Court is as to whether an offence under Section 473 of the IPC would be
made out in the present case or not. The relevant provision is extracted
hereunder:
473. Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with
intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise.--Whoever
makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for
making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for
the purpose of committing any forgery which would be
punishable under any section of this Chapter other than section
467, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal,
plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
6 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
to fine.
For an offence to be made out under Section 473 of the IPC, the
prosecution must prove:
(i) that the accused made a counterfeit seal/plate; and
(ii) the counterfeit should be made intending that the same
shall be used for committing any offence punishable
under the Chapter XVIII other than Section 467 I.P.C.;
or
(iii) the accused is in possession of such counterfeit seal/plate
with such an intent, as above; and
(iv) accused has the knowledge of the same to be counterfeit;
15. Thus in any of the twin possibilities i.e. making of counterfeit
seal or being in possession of a counterfeit seal with such intent of
committing crime and having knowledge about the plates being counterfeit,
an accused can be held liable for commission of the offence.
16. In view of the above, the evidence needs to be scrutinized for
the same.
17. It would be apposite to refer to the deposition of PW-5 Om
Parkash Sihag, Nazer, office of SDM, District Fatehabad, in this regard. The
relevant part of the deposition is extracted hereunder:
7 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
"Stated that today I have brought the summoned record
pertaining to vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-22A-2361,
as per record the said registration no is issued to tractor
Shivraj-735, which was on the name Joginder Singh Son of
Nachatter Singh R/o village Laduwas, Tehsil and District
Hisar. Attested copy of above said tractor is Ex.Pw5/A. Today I
have also brought the summoned record pertaining to vehicle
bearing Registration No. HR-22A-0361, as per record the said
registration no is issued to Maruti Car, which was on the name
Ved Parkash Son of Ram Lal R/o village Nangal, Tehsil Ratia,
District Hisar. Attested copy of above said Maruti Car is
Ex.Pw5/B. The above said is true as per original record
brought by me today in the court. On the police request I made
a endorsement is Ex.Pw5/C, I identify my signature on the
same. My statement was recorded. "
18. It would also be apposite to refer to the deposition of PW-8
Balvir Singh. The relevant part of his deposition is extracted hereunder:
"Stated that I was resident of ward No.1
Sardulgarh. I am having business of sale and purchase of cars
at Sardulgarh. Maruti Car bearing No. HR-22A-0361 was
purchased by me from Piara Singh son of Jarnail Singh r/o
Fatehabad for Rs. 19,000/- then the same car was purchased
from me by Gurpreet Singh for 18,500/- vide affidavit dated
8 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
30.04.2017 which is Mark-A on which Gurpreet Singh son of
Buta Singh r/o Village Mirpur Khurd District Mansa put his
signatures and I also signed the same. I identify my signature
on the same. When I purchased the car from Piayar Singh I had
not transferred the ownership of car on my name.
XXX by proxy counsel
Stated that I do not have any knowledge facts of
this case. Police official have not obtained my signature and
not recorded any statement. I know only about my affidavit. It is
wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in connivance with
police officials."
19. As can be gleaned from the statements of Om Parkash Sihag
(PW-5) and Balvir Singh (PW-8), it is not in dispute that the registration
number on the recovered car, i.e., HR-22A-2361, belonged to Joginder
Singh and the number plates bearing No. HR-22A-0361 belonged to a
Maruti car owned by one Ved Parkash, son of Ram Lal. It is also not in
dispute that it was Gurpreet Singh (driver of the recovered car), who had
bought the car from Balvir Singh (PW-8). The prosecution however did not
examine Ved Parkash as a witness during the course of the trial to establish
as to whether the car was ever sold to Balvir Singh or not, since Balvir Singh
was not the registered owner of the car. The chain of events thus remains to
be proved as to how Balvir Singh is proved to be the owner of the recovered
car.
9 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
20. Apart from the above two depositions, there is no other
evidence. Hence, even from the best evidence of the prosecution, the car
was purchased by co-accused Gurpreet Singh. It has nowhere come in
evidence that the petitioner had in any manner been instrumental in making
of the forged number plate or its affixation on the recovered car.
21. There is also no evidence that the petitioner was in any manner
or by any means aware of the actual registration number of the car or had
been instrumental in making of or changing the number plate. Hence,
neither the act of making of a forged number plate nor the mens rea or
conscious possession is established.
22. The law needs no reiteration that there can be no presumption
of an offence and the burden falls upon the prosecution to prove existence of
active ingredients for attracting a criminal liability against an accused.
23. Undisputedly, the correct number plates lay under the Driver's
seat and not in possession of the petitioner. He is neither the owner nor the
Driver of the vehicle, hence, there is no circumstance pointed out in which
he may be inferred to have known of the actual registration number of the
vehicle. The investigation as well as evidence is silent on the same.
Additionally, for holding a person liable for offence under Section 473 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, the making of counterfeit plate should be for
committing any forgery punishable under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, other than Section 467 I.P.C. The offence for which the
petitioner was additionally charged was Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act,
10 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
which is not punishable under the above Chapter of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
24. Hence, considering it from any perspective, as above, the
evidence lacks in satisfying the ingredients for charge to sustain, against the
petitioner.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the matter
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1984)
4 SCC 116, laid down five golden principles before the guilt of an accused
can be established. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and
"must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
[(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made:
[SCC para 19, p. 807]
11 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and
'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from
sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.
(Emphasis supplied)"
26. In the light of the above circumstances, I find that it is a fit case
for this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction since the judgments of
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court fail to consider the facts of the
12 of 13
241 CRR-2738-2025 (O&M)
case as per the requirements prescribed in law. Consequently, the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2020, passed by the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh as well as the judgment dated
09.10.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in Criminal
Appeal No.10 of 18.03.2020, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the
offence under Section 473 of the IPC. The bail bonds of the petitioner stand
discharged, if not involved in any other case.
27. The present revision petition stands allowed accordingly. The
accused-petitioner is set at large in this case, if not required in any other
case.
28. Pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
23.01.2026 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
13 of 13
