Gurdial Singh vs State Of Punjab

1
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
Gurdial Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUJA CHOPRA
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
...
PUJA CHOPRA , J. (Oral)
In the present criminal revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged the judgment dated 11.08.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, affirming the judgment and order
dated 15.02.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Baba Bakala, whereby the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. Briefly, as per the case of the prosecution, a complaint dated
22.05.2003 (Ex.PA) was filed by the complainants Gurmukh Singh s/o
Rattan Singh, village Rangar-Nangal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur
r/o and
Gurnet Singh s/o Sh. Chanchal Singh , r/o village Bhullar, Tehsil Baba Bakala,
District Amritsar. The allegations of the complainants in brief are to the
effect that accused Gurdial Singh (petitioner herein) is the real brother of
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
the father-in-law of Gurmukh Singh (one of the complainants). The
petitioner was also known to the brother of second complainant Gurnet
Singh, who was working as a mason at the house of the petitioner. Both
the complainants were repeatedly assured by the accused/petitioner that
his brother-in-law, Paramjit Singh, was settled in Malaysia and that he
could send both of them to Malaysia by arranging their tickets and
permanent work permits. Petitioner further represented that his brother-in-
law would help them settle there and the petitioner asked the
complainants to pay Rs.90,000/- each for sending them to Malaysia and
arranging permanent work permits for a period of three years.
2.1 Further on 22.03.2002, complainant Gurnet Singh paid
Rs.90,000/- to petitioner in the presence of his Father in law Avtar Singh
and on 23.03.2002, complainant Gurmukh Singh also paid Rs.90,000/- to
petitioner in the presence of his father-in-law Saroop Singh. As per
complainants at that time also, the accused assured the complainants that
they would be settled in Malaysia.
2.2 On 30.03.2002, the complainants boarded a train from
Calcutta for Banka. At the airport, one person, namely Happy, met them
and took them to a hotel, where they stayed for one night. On the next
date, they were sent to Malaysia by car from Harjai Place. After reaching
Malaysia, the car dropped them at the house of the brother-in-law
(Paramjeet Singh) of the accused/Petitioner. The brother-in-law of the
accused expressed his inability to settle the complainants or to arrange
work permits for them. However, on humanitarian grounds, Paramjieet
Singh assured them that he could help them but could not take
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
responsibility for their settlement in Malaysia. The complainants
thereafter stayed at a place near Satyawan. During that time, the
Malaysian Government had started a campaign to send illegal migrants
back to their respective countries, and the airports had been opened for
their departure. The complainants did not possess visas for Malaysia.
They worked there for about 15-20 days, after which some Indian persons
helped them to purchase tickets. The complainants approached the
Embassy, which permitted them to return to India, and they returned on
30.07.2002. According to the complainants, the accused/petitioner had
committed fraud upon them and had illegally taken Rs.90,000/- each from
them on the pretext of settling them in Malaysia with permanent work
permits, which he failed to arrange. The complainants repeatedly
approached petitioner for refund of their money, but he refused to return
the same and threatened them with consequences if they filed any
complaint with the police.
3. The aforesaid complaint (Ex.PA) was addressed to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Majitha, who marked the same on 23.05.2003 to
Jaswant Singh, Incharge, AFS Staff, Majitha. The said Jaswant Singh,
conducted an inquiry and recorded the statements of complainant Gurnet
Singh (Ex.PD), Avtar Singh (Ex.PW3/A), Gurmukh Singh (Ex.PB),
Saroop Singh (Ex.PW6/A) and the statement of the petitioner herein
(Ex.PW8/A). Thereafter, Jaswant Singh, Incharge, AFS Staff, submitted
his report (Ex.PB9/B) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha,
whereafter FIR No.88 dated 07.06.2003, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC,
was registered at Police Station Mehta.
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
4. During the course of investigation petitioner was granted the
concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar vide order dated 30.06.2003 and Petitioner remained on bail
during trial. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after completion
of investigation, the challan was presented before the learned trial Court
on 27.01.2004 and charges were framed against the petitioner on
09.04.2004 under Section 420 IPC, to which the petitioner pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses,
namely, Gurmukh Singh PW-1, Gurnet Singh PW-2, Avtar Singh PW-3,
Major Singh PW-4, Mukhtiar Singh PW-5, Saroop Singh PW-6,
Sukhwinder Singh PW-7, Jaswant Singh PW-8, Ajmer Singh PW-9 and
the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In
his defence, the petitioner examined two witnesses, namely, Kabul Singh
(DW1) and Harbhajan Singh (DW2).
6. After appreciating the evidence on record and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments advanced
by the respective parties, learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty
and accordingly convicted him under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine
of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two months.
7. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2008 passed by learned
trial Court, which was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 11.08.2010. The present revision
petition has accordingly been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments
and order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily pressed the
present petition on three grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the learned
Courts below have ignored the inquiry report dated 24.06.2005 which is
stated to have been conducted by DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh, wherein the
petitioner was found innocent. It is further submitted by the counsel for
petitioner that the said inquiry report was misplaced by the then SI/SHO
Sukhdev Singh and that, somehow, the petitioner managed to obtain a
cover page of the inquiry report by applying under the Right to
Information Act.
8.1. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in
relation to the disappearance of the inquiry report qua inquiry conducted
by DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh, FIR No.195 dated 06.12.2007 was registered
against the then SI/SHO Sukhdev Singh, Incharge, Police Station Mehta,
under Sections 211, 219 and 220 IPC. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that this fact was overlooked by learned Courts below
and it is specifically argued that the said FIR has neither been cancelled
nor has the challan therein been presented.
8.2. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
present case is the result of enmity between the families of the
complainant Gurmukh Singh and the petitioner. It is submitted that, on an
earlier occasion, one Kewal Singh and Saroop Singh (father in-law of
Gurmukh Singh) had been convicted under Section 325 IPC in another
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
FIR on the statement of the petitioner. The said Roop Singh @ Saroop
Singh is the father-in-law of complainant-Gurmukh Singh and the brother
of the petitioner. On this basis, the counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present case is the result of vendetta and false implication.
9. Apart from the aforesaid three grounds, learned counsel for
the petitioner has also argued that the mode of payment of Rs.1,80,000/-
to the petitioner has not been proved and that the receipts relied upon by
the prosecution regarding the alleged payment of the aforesaid amount to
the petitioner are also doubtful.
10. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the
petitioner and submitted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited.
He relies on various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court
as well. It is further contended by learned State counsel that, after
properly appreciating the evidence on record and considering the
statements of the witnesses, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the
petitioner and the learned First Appellate Court rightly dismissed his
appeal. Learned State counsel has also produced the custody certificate of
the petitioner dated 01.09.2026. A perusal thereof reveals that the
petitioner has undergone custody for 03 months and 26 days and has also
earned remission of 12 days, making the total sentence undergone by him,
including remission, as 04 months and 08 days. It is further mentioned in
the custody certificate that no other case is pending against the petitioner.
11. On being asked by this Court, learned State counsel has also
admitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever
misused the concession of bail. It is also not disputed by learned State
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
counsel that the fine imposed by the learned trial Court has been
deposited by petitioner.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
13. Before adverting to the contentions raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is apposite to note that the grievance of the
complainants and the case of the prosecution is not that the complainants
had not been sent abroad. Rather, the grievance is that the work permits
promised by the petitioner were not arranged, as a result whereof the
complainants, who were sent to Malaysia on 30.03.2002, had to return to
India after about four months, on 30.07.2002.
14. A perusal of the statement of petitioner recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as examining the case set up by the petitioner
in his defense shows that the petitioner has never disputed the fact that the
complainants had gone to Malaysia or that they returned therefrom after
about four months. Thus, the case of petitioner that he had not received
any money from the complainants or that the case was false is irrelevant.
Admittedly, no work permits were arranged by the petitioner for the
complainants in Malaysia who returned to India after four months.
15. As regards the payments made by the complainants to the
petitioner, complainant-Gurmukh Singh stepped into the witness box as
PW1 and complainant-Gurnet Singh stepped into the witness box as PW2,
and fully proved their version regarding payments. They also examined
PW3 Avtar Singh, PW4 Major Singh, PW5 Mukhtiar Singh and PW6
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
Saroop Singh in support of their case regarding the payments of
Rs.90,000/- each by them to the petitioner.
16. The complaint made by Gurmukh Singh and Gurnet Singh
had been duly inquired into by PW8 Inspector Jaswant Singh, AFS Staff,
who had recorded the statements of the witnesses during inquiry and all
the proceedings during inquiry and statements recorded by Inspector
Jaswant Singh, AFS Staff have been proved on record by him by
appearing in witness box as PW8.
17. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding
the inquiry allegedly conducted by DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh and FIR
No.195 dated 06.12.2007, registered in relation to the alleged misplacing
of the said inquiry report, is not of much consequence. Firstly, the said
DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh has not been examined in defense by petitioner.
Be that as it may, the alleged inquiry report is dated 24.06.2005, whereas
the FIR regarding the alleged misplacing of the same is stated to have
been registered on 06.12.2007. Further, the present FIR No.88 was
registered on 07.06.2003 on the basis of the inquiry marked by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Majitha as aforesaid. No material has been
placed on record by petitioner before the learned Courts below to show
that the second inquiry was conducted with the permission of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Majitha, who had earlier marked the inquiry or
any other competent authority. Even otherwise multiple inquiries by
police authorities have been deprecated by this court as held in Jaswinder
Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2009 SCC OnLine P&H 264.) as
under:
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
“In view of the affidavit filed, it will be necessary to hold
that instructions issued by the Director General of Police,
Punjab on 1.4.2008 be strictly construed and once enquiry
has been held, no further enquiry ought to be held by the
police except for the orders given by the Courts and
Human Rights Commission or any other statutory body of
the State or as envisaged in the instructions issued by the
Director General of Police, which say that if inquiry is to
be got conducted from officers of outside district/range,
then the case be sent for further inquiry after approval of
the Director General of Police and the Punjab
Government. Any violation of the instructions, Annexure P
9, shall not be looked favourably and the concerned person
holding enquiry shall be fastened with costs”
18. Further, there is nothing on record to show the fate of FIR
No.195 dated 06.12.2007 which was allegedly registered regarding
disappearance of inquiry report conducted by DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh. The
petitioner has himself stated in the revision petition that the challan in the
said FIR had not been presented. The revision petition was filed before
this Court on 06.09.2010 and even during the course of the present
hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to state the
result or fate of the said FIR.
19. The learned Courts below have already considered this
aspect of the matter and rightly rejected the contention raised by the
petitioner. The mere registration of the FIR against the then SI/SHO does
not establish that the accused in the present case is innocent. In the
present case, this Court is to consider the case from the evidence adduced
by the parties and the inquiry report if any made by the police official at
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
any point of time can only be considered as one of the relevant piece of
evidence if proved during trial in accordance with law.
20. As regards the litigation between Saroop Singh father in-law
of complainant Gurmukh Singh and petitioner Gurdial Singh and others, it
is apposite to mention that the said litigation was not between the
petitioner and the complainants themselves, but rather involved Saroop
Singh, the father-in-law of complainant Gurmukh Singh. Be that as it
may, the parties are close family members and are closely related to each
other. Therefore, it is not uncommon for parties to have reconciled their
differences. The petitioner has not established any direct enmity or
litigation between himself and the complainants.
21. Even otherwise, the judgment dated 26.08.2003 relied upon
by the petitioner in the present revision petition qua litigation with Saroop
Singh father-in-law of complainant-Gurmukh Singh was neither produced
during the trial nor has a certified copy thereof been placed on record in
the present revision petition. Further, no application for leading additional
evidence has been filed by petitioner. Thus, the said judgment cannot be
taken into consideration at this stage. Be that as it may, the learned Courts
below have already considered the issue of pending litigation in their
respective judgments and have rightly rejected the argument raised by
counsel for petitioner.
22. The judgments passed by the learned Courts below,
therefore, calls for no interference insofar as the conviction of the
petitioner is concerned. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Malkeet Singh Gill
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2022 SCC OnLine SC 786) has held as
under:
“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at
the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent
findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after
detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought
on record. The High Court in criminal revision against
conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike
to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in
revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal
Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,
recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error
which is to be determined on the merits of individual case.
It is also well settled that while considering the same, the
revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts
and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.”
22.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander & Anr., 2012 9 SCC 460 , has held as under:
“12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can
be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does
not specifically use the expression ‘prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice’, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited
one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order
passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be

12
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance
with the provisions of law, the decision is completely
erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon
the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder
videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law
gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The
Section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice
and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted
to be abused. ”
In view of the limited scope of interference in revision
petitions, this Court hereby upholds the judgments passed by the learned
Courts below.
23. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is around 80 years of age and is suffering from age-related
ailments. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the
petitioner is a first time offender having no other criminal antecedents and
that he has been facing criminal proceedings and the agony of trial since
2003. It is also submitted that he has never misused the concession of bail.
Learned counsel accordingly prays that the sentence imposed upon the
petitioner be reduced.
24. As noticed above, the petitioner has already undergone
custody for 03 months and 26 days and has earned remission.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this
Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the
petitioner to the period already undergone by him, while keeping the fine
intact.
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

13
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
25. For this view, the Court draws support from the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar vs.
State of Punjab in CRR-2939-2012 (2026:PHHC:002216) , wherein the
sentence of the Accused petitioner therein convicted under sections
420,468,467,471 IPC was reduced from 3 years to 4 months 16 days,
while relying upon various judgments of this Hon’ble Court as well as
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
25.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Satish vs. State of
U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580 , had observed that,
"Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right
to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free
roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of
ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is
the foundation of reformative theory which propounds
that a civilized society cannot be achieved only
through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that
instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual
acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time
offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to
repent their past and look forward to a bright future.
[ Maru Ram v. Union of India , (1981) 1 SCC 107:
1981 SCC (Cri) 112]".
26. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and the
fact that the petitioner has suffered the pain and agony of a protracted
trial, this Court finds sufficient circumstances warranting reduction of the
sentence. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 15.02.2008 passed by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, is partly
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

14
CRR-2478-2010 (O&M)
modified and reduced to already undergone as mentioned above. The
present revision petition is, accordingly, stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(PUJA CHOPRA)
02.09.2026 JUDGE
Rajan
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJAN
2026.09.07 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document