##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 25.08.2026 Pronounced on: 26.08.2026 Uploaded on: 27.08.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

1. CRR No.712 of 2008 Satnam Singh (since deceased) through his LR Rajwinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent

2. CRR No.713 of 2008 Balwinder Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Argued by:- Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-712-2008.

Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Amicus Curiae for petitioner No.1-Balwinder Singh in CRR-713-2008.

Petitioner No.2-Darshan Singh dead in CRR-713-2008 and the revision petition qua him has already been rendered infructuous vide order dated 08.05.2008.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Both the above-said revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, dated 24th August 2006, whereby all the four accused, namely Pradeep Kumar, Darshan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh, were convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The revisionist-petitioners have also challenged the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court, dated 29th March 2008, whereby four appeals, out of which one was filed by the State for enhancement of sentence, while the other three were filed by Darshan Singh, Balwinder Singh, Satnam Singh and Pradeep Kumar against their conviction, were decided. The judgment was modified to the extent that the conviction was upheld, whereas the sentence was modified as under:-

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 6th June

2000, Shri H.S. Dhaliwal, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, had written a letter No. 977, dated 6th June 2000, to the SHO, Police Station City Gurdaspur, to the effect that Criminal Case No.70 of 24.04.2000, titled as ‘State versus Gurmit Singh etc.’, arising out of FIR No.65 dated 24.07.1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, of Police Station City Gurdaspur, was pending in his Court. The said case was fixed for consideration on charge on 2nd June 2000. It was reported by the Reader of the Court, Shri Sukhwinder Singh Riar, that the judicial file of the concerned case, along with other files fixed for 2nd June 2000, had been arranged on the dais of the Court as per the cause list. In the afternoon, it was noticed that the concerned file, i.e State versus Gurmit Singh etc., was missing from the dais of the Court. The file in question could not be traced despite efforts made by the Court staff. The loss of the record was intimated to learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The SHO, Police Station City Gurdaspur, was requested to register a case regarding theft of the concerned file titled ‘State versus Gurmit Singh etc.’, FIR No.65 dated 24.07.1999, and to investigate the matter and recover the missing file at the earliest.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, a formal FIR was registered. Thereafter, ASI Kirpal Singh visited the spot and prepared a rough site plan.

5. On 27th July 2000, Shri Sukhwinder Singh Riar, Reader of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, got his statement recorded before ASI Kirpal Singh to the effect that the file in question had been stolen by accused Satnam Singh, Driver, in connivance with the other accused. On 4th August 2000, Shri Ajay Verma, Vice-President, Bharatiya Janata Party, District Gurdaspur, got his statement recorded before ASI Kirpal Singh to the effect that accused Pradeep Kumar had told him that he, along with Gurmit Singh, Balwinder Singh and Darshan Singh, had got the judicial file of the case registered against them under Section 420 IPC stolen through Satnam Singh, Driver, by giving him an amount of Rs.10,000/-. On 4th August 2000, accused