[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Amit Kumar on 20 March, 2026
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRR-499-2014 (O&M)
Reserved on: 17.02.2026.
Date of decision: 20.03.2026.
Uploaded on: 20.03.2026.
Whether only operative part of the
judgment is pronounced or the full
judgment is pronounced. Operative part/full judgment
PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AMIT KUMAR
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: - Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate, for
Mr. Parveen Kumar Kataria, Advocate,
for the respondent.
1 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 17:53:00 :::
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -2-
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 08.12.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga in
Criminal Appeal No. 45 dated 02.12.2011, whereby the appeal filed by the
Revisionist herein against the judgment dated 05.09.2011 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in case bearing FIR No. 15 dated
12.02.2003, registered under sections 406, 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, at Police Station Sadar,
Moga, was dismissed.
2. The facts, as are necessary for the adjudication of the present
revision petition, are that on 11.06.2002, the District Manager, PUNSUP,
Moga, addressed a communication to the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau,
Punjab, Chandigarh, seeking registration of a First Information Report with
regard to misappropriation of paddy pertaining to the crop year 2000-2001 by
the proprietor of M/s Amit Rice Mills, Moga. It was alleged that M/s Amit
Rice Mills, Moga had entered into an agreement dated 01.01.2001 with
PUNSUP, whereby the said firm undertook to shell the paddy stock supplied
by PUNSUP and to deliver the milled rice to the Food Corporation of India
(FCI). Pursuant to the said agreement, a total of 63,098 bags of paddy of
varying weights, namely 35 kg, 50 kg, and 65 kg, aggregating to 26,291.65
quintals, were entrusted to the firm. The said paddy was received by Amit
Kumar, acting on behalf of the firm, who duly issued receipts in favour of
PUNSUP, Moga. In addition thereto, 6,638 bags of paddy, each weighing 50
kg and collectively amounting to 29,569.85 quintals, were received by the
miller from M/s Preet Trading Company, Dharamkot. It is the case of the
2 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -3-
prosecution that, out of the total stock, the firm transferred 2,625 bags of 35
kg each to M/s Moga Rice Mills, Moga; 765 bags of 50 kg each to M/s G.M.
Rice Mills, Baghapurana; 920 bags of 50 kg each to M/s Jain Industries,
Faridkot; 918 bags of 50 kg each to M/s Shivam Traders, Muktsar; and 3,672
bags of 50 kg each to M/s Shah Rice Mills, Talwandi Bhai. It is further alleged
that the firm delivered 8,800 bags of rice to the FCI on behalf of PUNSUP,
comprising 1,192.40 quintals of raw rice and 5,358.40 quintals of sella
variety, up to 06.04.2002. After accounting for the paddy shifted within and
outside the district and the rice supplied, a balance of 52,036 bags of paddy
was stated to be lying with the miller. As per the policy of the Government of
Punjab, the out-turn ratio of rice from paddy was prescribed as 64% with 1%
driage in respect of raw rice, and 65% without driage for sella rice. It was
alleged that, upon assessment by the District Manager (Field), PUNSUP,
Moga and the concerned Field Officer, a shortage of 15,415.79 quintals of
paddy was detected as on 30.04.2002 at the premises of M/s Amit Rice Mills,
Moga, without allowing the permissible driage. On the basis of the said
shortage, it was alleged that the firm had embezzled Government paddy to the
aforesaid extent and that a sum of Rs. 1,27,40,566/- was recoverable from the
firm, exclusive of the cost of dead stock articles supplied for milling purposes.
The conduct of the firm was alleged to constitute a breach of the agreement
and criminal breach of trust.
3. Upon receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was entrusted to SI
Mohan Lal of the Anti-Fraud Staff, Moga. As per the inquiry report, Amit
Kumar Bansal, proprietor of M/s Amit Rice Mills, Moga, was found to have
embezzled 15,413.25 quintals of paddy, with the corresponding economic
3 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -4-
loss assessed at Rs. 1,27,40,566/-. Thereafter, upon obtaining legal opinion
from the District Attorney, Moga, a formal case was registered at Police
Station Sadar, Moga against the said accused. The accused Amit Kumar was
formally arrested on 23.12.2003.
4. Upon completion of investigation, the final report under Section
173 CrPC was presented before the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate.
5. Upon presentation of the challan before the Ilaqa Magistrate,
copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the
accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C., free of costs. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the
Ilaqa Magistrate found a prima facie case to be made out and accordingly
framed charges against the accused under Sections 406 and 408 of the Indian
Penal Code, as well as under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as
many as eighteen witnesses. The said witnesses include PW-1 Daljit Singh,
Assistant Manager, PUNSUP; PW-2 Constable Manjinder Singh; PW-3
Head Constable Jagsir Singh; PW-4 Darshan Singh, District Manager,
PUNSUP, Moga; PW-5 Mohinder Kumar, Senior Assistant, PUNSUP,
Ludhiana; PW-6 Parshotam Lal, retired Deputy General Manager; PW-7
Rajiv Bhatnagar; PW-8 SI Mohan Lal; PW-9 Rola Nath; PW-10 Devinder
Singh; PW-11 Satwinder Kumar, retired Inspector Grade-II; PW-12 Head
Constable Balvir Singh; PW-13 Head Constable Bhupinder Singh; PW-14
Jugraj Singh Gill, Computer Assistant; PW-15 Amarjit Singh; PW-16 Surjit
Singh, Inspector; PW-17 Raman Kumar; and PW-18 Surinder Nath Saini.
4 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -5-
Upon completion of the examination of the aforesaid witnesses, the
prosecution evidence was closed by order of the Court.
7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-
respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances were put to him, which
he denied in toto and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead
any evidence in defence.
8. Upon consideration of the evidence led by parties as well as the
arguments advanced before it, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated
05.09.2011 acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner
preferred a criminal appeal bearing No.45 dated 02.12.2011, before the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The appellate court, upon
reappraisal of the material on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment
dated 08.12.2012, holding that no illegality or infirmity could be found in
the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the petitioner has
instituted the present revision petition.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation
contends that the impugned judgments rendered by both the courts suffer(s)
from patent illegality, misappreciation of evidence and erroneous application
of law and are hence liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the
respondent-miller had entered into an agreement dated 01.01.2001 with the
petitioner-Corporation for the crop year 2000-2001, whereby paddy stocks
were entrusted to him for milling and delivery of resultant rice to the Food
5 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -6-
Corporation of India. It is contended that, in breach of the said agreement
and the trust reposed in him, the respondent misappropriated 15,415.79
quintals of paddy, valued at approximately Rs.1,27,40,566/- and converted
the same to his own use. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
aforementioned FIR came to be registered against the respondent-miller.
Counsel submits that in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution
examined as many as eighteen witnesses and placed on record substantial
documentary evidence, however, both the courts have failed to appreciate
the evidence in its proper perspective and have wrongly brushed aside the
entire prosecution case on untenable grounds, particularly by holding that
entrustment of paddy was not proved.
11. Learned counsel further contends that the finding recorded by the
Courts regarding absence of proof of entrustment is manifestly perverse and
contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that documentary
evidence in the form of receipts, namely Exhibits PW5/B, PW5/C and
PW10/A, clearly establishes that the paddy stock had, in fact, been entrusted
to the respondent. Despite the existence of such cogent evidence, the courts
have discarded the same merely on the ground that the original agreement
dated 01.01.2001 (Ex. PA) was not formally proved.
12. It is further submitted that the acquittal of the respondent under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the ground of delay in
completion of investigation is equally unsustainable. Learned counsel argues
that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the case was not confined
solely to an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, but also involved
serious offences under Sections 406 and 408 IPC. It is contended that no fatal
6 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -7-
delay is attributable to the prosecution; rather, the conduct of the accused
himself contributed to prolonging the investigation.
13. Assailing the findings further, learned counsel submits that the
Courts have gravely erred in holding that the presence of an arbitration clause
in the agreement bars the invocation of criminal liability under Section 406
IPC. It is contended that such a conclusion runs contrary to the well-settled
position of law that the existence of a civil remedy does not ipso facto
exclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are
otherwise made out. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench in State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand (decided
on 25.01.2013), wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings are
maintainable notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause.
14. It is further submitted that the reasoning adopted by both the
Courts is self-contradictory, inasmuch as, while discarding the agreement on
the ground of non-proof, the courts have nevertheless relied upon the
arbitration clause contained therein to negate the criminal liability of the
respondent.
15. Learned counsel also contends that all the essential ingredients
constituting offences under Sections 406 and 408 IPC, as well as Section 7
of the Essential Commodities Act, stood established on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution. However, the same have been completely
overlooked or misinterpreted by the courts below.
16. Lastly, it is submitted that the entire approach adopted by both
the Courts in appreciating the evidence is fundamentally flawed. Material
evidence has been misread and relevant considerations have been ignored,
7 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -8-
while irrelevant and extraneous factors have been taken into account.
Counsel thus submits that the findings recorded are perverse and have
resulted in a failure of justice. On these premises, it is prayed that the
impugned judgments be set aside and the respondent be held liable in
accordance with law.
17. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that
evidence led by the parties has already been considered by both the Courts
and the finding of acquittal on the strength of evidence was returned by the
trial Court which has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court.
18. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and have also gone through the documents appended along with the present
petition as well as considered the arguments advanced.
19. Before proceeding further into the matter, it is apposite to make
a reference to the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court. The relevant
part thereof reads thus: -
"7. I have heard the Addl., PP for the appellant-State, counsel
for accused--respondent and have gone through the record
carefully.
8. Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant--State has
contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral as
well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to
prove the offence against the accused. It has wrongly held that
the agreement and receipts are anti--dated. He has contended
that as per policy of the government, if for one year, a mill is
entrusted by Food department for milling, then for the next year
department can supply the food grains for milling on the oral
basis. But the trial court has not appreciated these facts. He has
8 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -9-
contended that it has wrongly held that agreement has not been
proved when PW1 Dalip Singh has been examined to prove the
execution of Ex.PA. It has erred in holding that Ex.P10/A was
issued by Kamal Raj, who has no interest in the firm. But it has
failed to appreciate that Kama] Raj is father of accused Amit
Kumar. He has contended that as the prosecution witnesses have
supported the prosecution version and entrustment of paddy has
also been fully proved, so, the accused is liable for conviction
and has prayed that this appeal be accepted.
9. On the other hand it has been contended by counsel for
accused--respondent that the prosecution has failed to prove the
execution of the agreement EX.PA by accused Amit Kumar and
rather this agreement has not been proved pop the file and the
same is forged and fabricated document. He has contended that
the receipts Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.P10/A are also forged
and fabricated. So, the prosecution has failed to prove
entrustment of paddy to accused Amit Kumar. He has contended
that when prosecution has failed to prove the execution of Ex.PA
as well as the receipts vide which the paddy was entrusted to the
accused, So, the accused has been rightly acquitted by the trial
court and the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
10. After hearing the Addl., PP for the appellant--State and
learned counsel for the respondent, I do not find any substance
in the contentions raised by the Addl., PP for the State.
11. In order to prove the execution of agreement Ex.PA, the
prosecution has examined PW1 Daljit Singh AM Punsup.
Perusal of his statement reveals that he has stated that he had not
seen the original agreement. In his cross examination, he has
stated that the allotment of the paddy was made verbally; He has
also admitted that the agreement did not bear seal of any firm.
He has stated that no security was deposited by the accused. He
has also stated that the accused had not signed the receipts in his
9 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -10-
presence. He did not know in which truck paddy was sent to the
sheller of the accused. He has also stated that. during this period,
there is no deficiency in the stock. He has admitted that the
receipt dated: 30.11.2000 had been executed before the
agreement and the receipts dated: 11.12.2000, 30.12.2000 ;and
23.12.2000 had also been executed before the agreement. This
contention of the learned Addl.-PP for the State is without any
substance that the agreement Ex.PA has been duly proved on
record by PW1 Daljit Singh. Rather the prosecution has failed to
prove the execution of agreement Ex.PA as well as the receipts.
12. It has also been proved that the receipts are ante-dated.
The agreement is dated: 1.1.2001 where as the receipts pertain
to the year 2000.
13. PW17 Raman Kumar has also stated in his cross
examination that he had not seen the original agreement in the
court. He has also admitted that in his cross examination that the
agreement in favour of Punsup is not signed by Amit Kumar nor
any of the receipts is signed by Amit Kumar. He has also admitted
that during the investigation, the police authorities got compared
signatures of Amit Kumar with the agreement in dispute and
receipts and it was found that signatures of Amit Kumar were
forged and not genuine. He has admitted that during the
investigation, he came to know that signatures of Amit Kumar
are forged and fabricated on the agreement and receipts. He also
admitted that Amit Kumar has been falsely implicated in this case
to save the skin of erring officials of the PUNSUP.
14. PW8 SI Mohan Lal the investigating officer has stated that
the agreement as well as the receipts are forged. He has also
proved on record his inquiry report Ex.PW8/A. He has stated that
he had obtained the specimen signatures of the accused before
the Executive Magistrate which are Ex.PW8/F and Ex.PW8/G
10 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -11-
and he had sent the specimen signatures on resolution deed and
partnership deed and agreement for the year 1999--2000 for
comparison with the signatures of the accused on agreement for
the year 2000--01 Ex.PA. In his cross examination, he has stated
that no gate pass of paddy was produced by the officials of the
Punsup and no stock register of paddy was produced. No paddy
was ever recovered during the investigation nor its existence was
established by the Punsup officials. During the investigation
after receiving the report from Forensic Science Laboratory,
Chandigarh, Punsup authorities as well as District Manager has
failed to explain, who had signed the disputed agreement. He has
stated that he did not remember that in the disputed year this rice
mill was closed and Amit Kumar was not owner of Amit Rice Mill.
He has admitted that DistrictManager of Punsup, who had
signed this agreement never came to him and never made any
statement during investigation. He admitted it to be correct that
this agreement was not witnessed by any one. The Punsup
authorities had not produced any record regarding the
entrustment of paddy to the miller.
15. He has also admitted that three receipts were also got
compared from Assistant Director Forensic Science Laboratory,
Punsup, Chandigarh and all these receipts were found to be
forged one. He has admitted that it is correct that quantity of the
paddy had not been mentioned in the agreement and it was signed
by the miller at page 2 of the agreement. He further admitted that
he had also not verified that who had purchased the stamp papers
for this forged agreement. The persons who attested the receipts
on behalf of Punsup never came to him during the investigation
in spite of various requests made by him to the department. He
has stated that Kamal Raj was not proprietor or partner and has
no concern with Amit Rice Mills. He has stated that during
investigation, Punsup authorities had not produced the receipts
before. him. No record regarding ownership of the mill was
11 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -12-
produced. During investigation, it came to his notice that the mill
was on lease. He has stated that Pws had not produced any
receipts and other record for shifting of paddy to other rice mill.
He has stated that he had obtained the record from the bank. He
admitted it to be correct that signatures of Amit-Kumar also
differs from bank signatures obtained by him from the bank and
also differs from the signatures of the agreement dated:
14.10.1999. He has categorically stated in his cross examination
that as per the investigation, the signatures had not been proved
of Amit Kumar and the case had been registered and the accused
has been challaned only on the basis of the statement of District
Manager and otherwise, no case is made out against Amit
Kumar, who had not signed the said agreement.
16. After perusing. the statement of PW8 SI Mohan Lal, trial
court has rightly held that it is clear that alleged agreement
Ex.PA as well as receipts EX.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C are forged
and fabricated documents. Similarly, receipt-EX.PW10/A dated:
11.12.2000 is also not signed by Amit Kumar. Rather it was
signed by Kamal Raj, who has no concern with Amit Rice Mills
and no power of attorney in favour of Kamal Raj has been proved
by the prosecution. Moreover the receipt is anti dated and is
dated: 11.12.2000 whereas the agreement is dated: 1.1.2001.
17. PW10 Devinder Singh has also deposed during his cross-
examination that he did not remember the name of Punsup
Inspector who was custodian of paddy. He has stated that he had
not produced the Mandi register in which the paddy was. entered
nor the same was produced before the police and receipt
Ex.PW10/A is written by Kamal Raj and he had not verified
about proprietor/partner of firm before handing over the goods.
18. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove even the receipt
Ex.PW10/A, when no power of attorney in favour of Kamal Raj
has been proved by the prosecution. PW18 Surinder Nath
12 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -13-
Sharma has also stated in his cross examination that he had not
produced Mandi register and stock register of the paddy which
was purchased by him from Daroli Bhai nor said register had
been produced in the court. He has also stated that no power of
attorney in favour of Kamal Raj, nor any authority letter in
favour of Kamal Raj had been seen and he had obtained receipt
from Kamal Raj in good faith. He has admitted that there was no
document on the file which shows that Kamal Raj was working
as manager. He has stated that he could not tell whether there
was any arbitration clause or not. He has stated that Daljit Raj
was custodian in charge of the paddy. He had no knowledge
about this paddy as he had purchased this paddy only from
Mandi and then he had sent the same to custodian incharge
Inspector. His duty was only in Mandi for purchase of paddy and
he had been informed about the receipt from Kamal Raj from the
District Office and he had not given anything in written
regarding the receipt issued by Kamal Raj.
19. The prosecution has placed on record the signatures of
accused EX.PW8/F and Ex.PW8/G that had been taken before
the Executive Magistrate for the purpose of comparison and have
also produced on record Ex.PW8/I and Ex.PW8/J the reports of
Assistant Director Forensic Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh.
The investigating officer SI Mohan Lal PW8 had sent the
specimen signatures of Amit Kumar for comparison before the
Assistant Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh
and vide reports EX.PW8/I and Ex.PW8/J the alleged signatures
of Amit Kumar had been declared forged and not signed by the
same person. As per opinion of the Assistant Director Forensic
Science Laboratory, Punjab Chandigarh, there is a different
authorship based on the cumulative consideration of various
divergences found in the writing habits in the questioned and
standard signatures and they showed difference in the general
and individual writing habits. Some of the characteristics in the
13 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -14-
individual writing habits such as in the minute and inconspicuous
details of formation of letters and their combination etc. Trial
court has thus rightly held that from the report of Assistant
Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh it is
clear that there is a divergence in the writing habits between the
questioned and standard signatures which are significant and
sufficient and are not due to natural variation or intended
disguise but are due to different authorship.
20. PW4 Darshan Singh D.M., Punsup, Moga, the
complainant has proved the application Ex.PI on the basis of
which the present FIR was registered against the accused. In his
cross examination, he has also stated that he had not seen the
register showing the purchase of paddy. He did not know the
officials, who were charge sheeted by the department regarding
misappropriation of the paddy. PW5 Mohinder Kumar has also
admitted in his cross examination that the-agreement and
receipts were not executed in his presence and he had no
knowledge who had executed the agreement and the same was
dealt by the field staff of the Punsup. He has stated that physical
verification report is not signed by the miller/accused. There is
over writing in the date of 30.4.2002 of the physical verification
report. But he did not know, who had done the same. He also
admitted that there was over writing (in the dates on the
signatures of Rajwant Singh field officer and Parshotam Lal
DDM, field and physical verification report was not signed by
him. He could not say when the physical verification was
conducted and who had conducted the same. He could not say
why the date had been changed in the physical verification report
and he had not handed over the physical verification report
dated: 23.8.2001 to the police nor had produced in the court.
21. PW5 Parshotam Lal retired General Manager has also
admitted in cross examination that agreement Ex.PA was
14 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -15-
witnessed by Punsp officials. But no witness is on behalf of the
miller. He did not know whether signatures of Amit Kumar are
forged and fabricated as per report of Assistant
Director'Forensic Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. He has
stated that rice mill was under custody of Mr. Saini Sub Inspector
of Punsup and two custodians of area were appointed by the
District Manager. Both are sub inspectors. He has stated that he
had not verified the gate pass and stock register of the paddy. He
admitted that EX.PW5/A is not signed by the miller and they had
not produced the physical verification report dated: 23.8.2001.
He admitted that date 30.4.2002 is over written. He did not
remember whether the Sub Inspectors were terminated by the
department for misappropriation of this paddy.
22. So, from the testimony of PW6, it appears that paddy was
misappropriated by two Sub- Inspectors, who were terminated
from the services as they were custodian of the paddy. So, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged misappropriation
had been made by the accused.
23. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it
transpires that trial court has rightly reached at the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the agreement Ex.PA,
receipts EX.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW10/A vide which the
paddy was entrusted to M/s Amit Rice Mill and rather the
agreement as well as receipts have been found to be forged and
fabricated documents. As already observed, the receipts are anti
dated as these pertain to the year 2000 while Ex.P1 is dated:
1.1.2001. As entrustment has not been proved and the agreement
and receipts have been found to be forged and fabricated
documents as such, no misappropriation can be alleged on the
part of the accused person.
20. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and a
15 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -16-
comprehensive reappraisal of the entire material on record, it is evident that
the Appellate Court has meticulously examined the entire evidence and has
rightly found no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the
appellant-State. Upon a proper appreciation of the testimony of material
witnesses, the Appellate Court has, rightly concluded that the prosecution
failed to establish the execution of the agreement (Ex. PA), which constituted
the very foundation of the case. The admissions of key witnesses, including
PW-1 Daljit Singh and PW-17 Raman Kumar, clearly demonstrated that the
execution and authenticity of the agreement as well as the receipts remained
unproved. The Appellate Court has further rightly appreciated that the
receipts relied upon by the prosecution, namely Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C and
Ex. PW10/A, were neither duly proved nor reliable, being ante-dated and
unsupported by lawful authority. The finding that such documents were not
executed by the accused and in certain instances were signed by a person
having no demonstrable authority, is based on a correct evaluation of the
evidence on record. Significantly, the Appellate Court has also rightly placed
reliance upon the forensic evidence, which unequivocally established that
the signatures attributed to the accused on the agreement and receipts were
forged. The opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, coupled with the
testimony of the Investigating Officer, clearly undermined the prosecution
case and was also considered in its proper perspective. The Appellate Court
has further taken note of material lapses in the prosecution case, including
the non-production of vital records such as stock registers, gate passes and
other documentary evidence necessary to establish entrustment and
movement of paddy. The absence of recovery and the failure to establish the
16 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -17-
existence of the alleged stock were also rightly weighed by the Court. In
view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the learned Appellate Court has
correctly and judiciously appreciated the entire evidence on record and has
arrived at well-reasoned findings.
21. In so far as the contention of the parties that a mere existence of
an arbitration clause is not an immunity from criminal proceedings is
concerned, the same is legally valid. Criminal proceedings may be initiated
notwithstanding an arbitration clause and continue, however, it is evident
that the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal after recording that the
petitioner PUNSUP could not establish execution of the agreement or even
the receipt in lieu of the alleged entrustment. Delivery of paddy, pursuant to
an agreement, was required to be proved by cogent evidence. Instead, the
witnesses of the prosecution conceded that the signature of the respondent-
accused on the agreement or the receipt did not match the standard
signatures. Besides, it was also established that only a photocopy of the
agreement was placed on record and the receipts exhibited on record
pertained to a period much prior to the alleged agreement.
22. The position in law is settled that a revisional Court does not sit
in re-appreciation of the evidence and if the conclusions drawn by both the
Courts are plausible and probable, a finding of acquittal shall not be
ordinarily interfered with.
23. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any demonstrable
perversity, illegality or manifest error in the conclusions arrived at by both
the Courts, the findings so recorded do not call for interference. It is a settled
principle of law that where two views are reasonably possible on the basis
17 of 18
CRR-499-2014 (O&M) -18-
of the evidence on record, the view which has commended itself to the Trial
Court and has been affirmed by the Appellate Court ought not to be disturbed
merely on the ground that another view may also be conceivable. While
exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal
to reappreciate the entire evidence or to substitute its own conclusions for
those arrived at by the Courts below. Interference is warranted only where
there exists a patent illegality, gross perversity, material irregularity or a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
24. In the present case, no such infirmity, be it illegality, perversity,
impropriety, or misappreciation of evidence has been pointed out or is
otherwise discernible from the record in the judgments rendered by the
Courts below. The concurrent findings are based on a proper and judicious
appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any error warranting
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
25. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same stands dismissed.
March 20, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
18 of 18
