LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/jarnail-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-20220712/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Jarnail Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
12 July 2022
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2010
Result
Allowed
Bench
Ajay Rastogi, Vikram Nath
Citation
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 196 : 2022 INSC 708
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 13 S.C.R. 196 : 2022 INSC 708
Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: ss. 409/109, 420/109, 467/109, 471/109, 474/109, 477-A/109 and 120-B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 13(i)(d) and 7 – Allegations against the General Manager of the State Roadways Depot, that in connivance with conductor and others was selling and using tickets got printed on his own and sold through his own persons, who used to collect money for him, causing huge loss to the Depot – Registration of FIR – Conviction and sentence of the three conductors-appellants u/ss. 409/109, 420/109, 467/109, 471/109, 474/109, 477-A/109 and 120-B IPC and ss. 13(i)(d) and 7 of the PC Act, and acquittal of the others by the courts below – On appeal, held: Failure of the inspecting team, to prove the recovery of the tickets to have been validly made as also failure to prove the enquiry report as only a photocopy was filed – No efforts by the prosecution to prove the existence of the original and loss thereof in order to take an order for leading secondary evidence – Thus, no reliance could be placed upon the enquiry report – Once, the recovery of the tickets is found to have not been made in accordance with law, nor the seized tickets could be connected to the three different buses and the conductors manning the said buses-appellants, not safe to rely upon the unconfirmed tickets to connect them to the appellants – Enquiry report not proved despite the State applying for leading secondary evidence and not pursuing it any further – Thus, no evidence to establish the charge against the appellants – Judgment of the High Court and the trial court qua the appellants set aside – Evidence. Ashok Dhulichand v. Madhavrao Dube (1975) 4 SCC

664 : [1976] 1 SCR 246; Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 612; Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406; Samsul Haque v. State of Assam (2019) 18 SCC 161; Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 : [1957] SCR 953; Shivaji S. Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : [1974] 1 SCR 489; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC

702 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 163; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 : [2013] 3 SCR 830; Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 16 SCC 369; State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider (2019) 2 SCC 303 : [2018] 14 SCR 1161 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. These two appeals question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.205 (SB) of 2002 (Sohan Lal and others Vs. The State of Punjab) whereby, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants namely, Jarnail Singh, Salwant Singh and Balkar Singh under Sections 409/109, 420/109, 467/109, 471/109, 474/109, 477-A/109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 and Sections 13(i)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →