Supreme Court acquits conductors in Punjab Roadways ticket scam case: Jarnail Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 12 July 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath.

Can a conviction be upheld when the key evidence is a photocopy of an enquiry report and unsealed seized tickets, and when the witnesses do not have any personal knowledge of the recovery of the said tickets? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a ticket scam in Punjab Roadways. The Court examined whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of three conductors, Jarnail Singh, Salwant Singh, and Balkar Singh, who were accused of a ticket scam. The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable and inadmissible.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint on 04 May 1996, by Malkiat Singh, a driver with Punjab Roadways Depot, Muktsar. He alleged that the General Manager of the depot, in collusion with conductors and others, was selling tickets printed privately, causing significant financial loss to the depot.

Following this complaint, the Deputy Commissioner of Muktsar forwarded the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). Simultaneously, the Deputy Commissioner also informed the Secretary of the Transport Department in Chandigarh about the alleged scam.

The Secretary, Transport Department, formed a three-member committee comprising Mr. Darshan Singh Sandhu (PW-20), Mr. M.S. Sandhu (PW-21), and Mr. Amarjit Singh Shahi (PW-22) to conduct a surprise inspection. On 11 May 1996, this committee inspected buses on the Delhi-Muktsar and Sirsa-Muktsar routes. They seized old tickets with increased values affixed by stamps, along with diaries, waybills, and cash from the conductors.

The committee also recorded statements from various individuals, including conductors, the General Manager, the Traffic Manager, and the Assistant Mechanical Engineer. The committee concluded that a significant scam had been committed with the connivance of the General Manager, causing substantial financial losses to the government. They recommended the suspension of several officials and conductors.

Based on a legal opinion, an FIR was registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 474, 477A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, a police report was submitted, leading to charges against 15 individuals, including conductors, inspectors, and managers. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and presented documentary evidence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted two managers, Iqbal Singh and Amrik Singh, and two inspectors, Gurucharan Singh and Kharaiti Lal. However, it convicted the remaining eleven accused.

Four appeals were filed against the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court acquitted the remaining managers, Jagdip Singh Galwatti and Amarjeet Singh Sandhu, and two inspectors, Sohan Lal and Teja Singh. It also acquitted three conductors, Charanjeet Singh, Iqbal Singh, and Sham Lal. One conductor, Jugraj Singh, passed away during the trial, and proceedings against him were abated.

The High Court upheld the conviction of three conductors: Jarnail Singh, Salwant Singh, and Balkar Singh, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 474, 477A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are:

• Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by a banker, merchant or agent.
• Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 474: Having possession of document knowing it to be forged with intent to use it as genuine.
• Section 477A: Falsification of accounts.
• Section 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

The relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are:

• Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.

Arguments

The appellants raised several arguments against their conviction:

• Admissibility of the Enquiry Report: The appellants argued that the enquiry report submitted by the three officers (PW-20, PW-21, and PW-22) was not placed on record in its original form. Only a photocopy was filed, and the Trial Court admitted it subject to proof of the original document’s existence and subsequent loss. The appellants contended that the prosecution failed to provide further evidence to prove the loss of the original documents, which was necessary to admit secondary evidence.
• Enquiry Report as Evidence: The appellants argued that the enquiry report was merely a fact-finding report and not substantive evidence. It could only serve as a basis for registering the FIR. The Trial Court itself had noted the defense’s objection that the report would be exhibited subject to proof of the original’s existence and loss.
• Investigating Officer’s Testimony: The Investigating Officer (PW-23) stated that he received a photocopy of Malkiat Singh’s affidavit and the enquiry report from the Station House Officer. He admitted that he did not know whether the original documents were lost.
• Reliance on Ashok Dhulichand Vs. Madhavrao Dube: The appellants cited the judgment in Ashok Dhulichand Vs. Madhavrao Dube [(1975) 4 SCC 664] to support their argument regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence.
• Seized Tickets: The appellants argued that the seized tickets were not properly handled. The tickets were taken into custody by the Inspection Committee but were never sealed. These tickets were not seen by the Inspection Team or the police at any stage. There was no segregation of tickets from different buses. The tickets were produced in court unsealed and were identified by PW-8 and PW-15, who were not witnesses to the recovery and had no personal knowledge of the same.
• Lack of Passenger Testimony: No passengers were examined to prove the sale of fake tickets. The prosecution’s case was based only on the possession of fake tickets, not their sale.
• Excess Cash: The appellants argued that the alleged excess cash found during the inspection was not proven, and no questions were asked about it during the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Failure to Prove the Case: The appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, lacking legally reliable, admissible, and unimpeachable evidence. They relied on several judgments, including Jai Dev Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1973 SC 612], Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406], Samsul Haque Vs. State of Assam [(2019) 18 SCC 161], Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637], Shivaji S. Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793], Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 1 SCC 702], Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar [(2015) 16 SCC 369], and State of U.P. Vs. Wasif Haider [(2019) 2 SCC 303].

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the prosecution established the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of legally reliable, admissible, and unimpeachable evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was weak due to the following reasons:

The Court also analyzed how the authorities were viewed:

✓ The Court relied on Ashok Dhulichand Vs. Madhavrao Dube [(1975) 4 SCC 664]* to highlight that secondary evidence cannot be admitted without proving the existence and loss of the original document.

✓ The Court relied on Jai Dev Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1973 SC 612], Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406], Samsul Haque Vs. State of Assam [(2019) 18 SCC 161], Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637], Shivaji S. Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793], Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 1 SCC 702], Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar [(2015) 16 SCC 369], and State of U.P. Vs. Wasif Haider [(2019) 2 SCC 303]* to emphasize the importance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with legally reliable, admissible, and unimpeachable evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of proper evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring that evidence is both admissible and reliable.

The sentiment analysis indicates that the lack of admissible evidence and procedural irregularities were the primary factors that influenced the court’s decision.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations and the lack of adherence to legal procedure than factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

The Court stated:

“From the perusal of their statement as noted above, we are afraid that the High Court could have recorded conviction on its basis for the following reasons: Firstly, there is no evidence of the seized tickets being sealed at any stage.”

“From the above statements of the Inspecting Team, they failed to firstly prove the recovery of the tickets to have been validly made. Secondly, they also failed to prove the enquiry report as only a photocopy was filed and objections to the same was recorded in the statement itself.”

“In view of our finding that there is no evidence to establish the charge against the appellants, we need not burden this judgment by referring to the case laws relied upon by the appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Original Documents: The judgment emphasizes the importance of presenting original documents as evidence. Secondary evidence is only admissible under specific conditions, such as proving the loss of the original.
• Proper Handling of Seized Items: Seized items must be properly handled and sealed to maintain their integrity as evidence. Witnesses must have personal knowledge of the recovery of the items.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt with legally reliable, admissible, and unimpeachable evidence.
• Adherence to Procedure: Courts must ensure that all legal procedures are followed and that evidence is presented in accordance with the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, who were already on bail, be discharged and their bail bonds be cancelled.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on secondary evidence without proving the loss of the original document, and on unsealed seized items that are not properly connected to the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt with reliable and admissible evidence. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring that evidence is both admissible and reliable. The Court acquitted the appellants, highlighting the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases.