The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and valid evidence to support criminal charges, and the consequences of a lack of such evidence leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

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[In short “IPC”] and Sections 13(i)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,²[In short “PC Act”] to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of fine to undergo additional six months imprisonment, awarded by the Special Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2002.

FACTS:

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts could be summarised as under:

(i) One Malkiat Singh, a driver of the Punjab Roadways Depot, Muktsar made a complaint dated 04.05.1996 to the higher officers of the Department alleging that General Manager of the Punjab Roadways Depot, Muktsar in connivance with conductor and others has been selling and using tickets got printed on his own and sold through his own persons, who used to collect money for him and, as such, has caused loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the Depot.

(ii) On the basis of the said complaint, the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muktsar and on its basis, an FIR was registered by Inspector, Dilbag Singh.

(iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar also forwarded the complaint to the Secretary, Transport Department, Chandigarh regarding the alleged scandal. The Secretary in turn required three Officers namely,

(a) Mr. Darshan Singh Sandhu, Deputy Secretary, Forest and Wildlife, Chandigarh, Muktsar (PW-20),

(b) Mr. M.S. Sandhu, S.D.M., Zira (PW-21) and,

(c) Mr. Amarjit Singh Shahi, S.D.M., Bassi Pathana (PW-22);

to make a surprise checking and submit their report.

(iv) These three officers made checking of the conductors of the buses on the routes of Delhi-Muktsar and Sirsa-Muktsar on 11.05.1996. They took into possession old tickets and tickets value of which was increased by affixing stamps on the same, the diaries and way-bills of drivers, and the cash in their possession in the ticket bag.

(v) The Enquiry Committee also recorded statements. The statements of conductors of some of the buses, which were given on contract basis by the General Manager were also recorded.

(vi) The Enquiry Committee also recorded the statements of General Manager, Traffic Manager and the Assistant Mechanical Engineer.

(vii) The Committee was of the view that with the connivance of the General Manager, a big scandal was committed and the Government was put to loss of lakhs of rupees by the Inspectors of Muktsar Depot and also Inspectors of other Depots and even the Inspectors of the flying squad and the In-charge of the flying squad were also conniving in the same.

(viii) On the basis of the detailed enquiry report, a recommendation was made for suspending the General Manager, Traffic Manager, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, concerned Inspectors and Conductors.

(ix) On the basis of legal opinion given that a prima facie case was made out for registering a case under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 474, 477-A and 120-B of IPC, an FIR was registered.

(x) Accordingly, after due investigation, a police report under Section 173(2) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,³[In short “CrPC”] was submitted on the basis of which, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against fifteen (15) persons, viz. seven (7) Conductors, four (4) Inspectors and four (4) Managers/Senior officials. The prosecution examined as many as twenty-three (23) witnesses and also filed documentary evidence.

3. All the incriminating circumstances and the evidence led by the prosecution were put to the accused at the stage of section 313 CrPC. The accused denied all