Sukhminder Singh vs State Ofpb.

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-445-SB-2005
Sukhminder Singh …...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …... Respondent
1. Date when Order was reserved 20.08.2026
2. Pronouncement of Order 08.09.2026
3. Date of uploading Order 09.09.2026
4. Whether operative part or full Order is
pronounced
Yes
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full
order, and reasons thereof
Not Applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pravesh, Advocate for
Mr. Umaid Singh Mann, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Appellant-Sukhminder Singh, (aged 41 years as per the
judgment dated 18.02.2005), has filed the instant appeal, challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2005 passed by
learned Special Judge, Patiala (Trial Court), in FIR No.7 dated
12.02.2001, registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 2
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’) at Police
Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Patiala, and in tabulated form, same is
detailed as under:-
Offence under
Section
Sentence Fine In default of
payment of fine
Section 7 of
Prevention of
Corruption Act,
1988
Rigorous
imprisonment
for 02 years
Rs.1,000/- Rigorous
imprisonment
for 02 months
Section 13(2) of
Prevention of
Corruption Act,
1988 read with
Section 13(1)(d)
of the
Prevention of
Corruption Act,
1988
Rigorous
imprisonment
for 02 years
Rs.1,000/- Rigorous
imprisonment
for 02 months
Factual background
2. Complainant-Baljit Singh had applied for a loan for the
purchase of buffaloes in the office of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land
Development and Finance Corporation, Patiala, about six months prior to
12.02.2001. As no intimation was received regarding the loan, he met the
appellant-Sukhminder Singh, while he was posted as a Clerk in the same
office. However, no satisfactory reply was given to him by the appellant.
When complainant went to the State Bank of Patiala,
Bhadson, for making an inquiry, the bank official asked him to furnish
the dispatch number of his loan application from the office of the
Corporation. After about 15-20 days, the complainant again went to the
office where the appellant was posted to inquire about the dispatch
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 3
number of his application. It is alleged that, instead of providing the
information, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200/- from
the complainant for furnishing the dispatch number of the loan case,
which had been sent to the State Bank of Patiala, Bhadson.
Complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount
and narrated the matter to Balkar Singh, resident of Village Dittupur. On
12.02.2001, both of them thereafter went to the office of the Vigilance
Bureau, Patiala, where they met DSP-Ranjit Singh Dhillon. Statement of
the complainant, Ex.PL, was recorded. Two currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.100/- each were handed over to the DSP, who
applied Phenol Phathalein powder (P-powder) to the same and thereafter
returned them to the complainant.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that, pursuant to the
instructions of Ranjit Singh Dhillon, DSP, a trap was laid in the presence
of shadow witness and other official witnesses. During the trap
proceedings, the appellant allegedly demanded and accepted the
aforesaid amount of Rs.200/-, comprising two currency notes of Rs.100/-
each. Said currency notes were recovered from left pocket of the trouser
of the appellant and were taken in possession, vide recovery memo
Ex.PF.
During personal search of the appellant, one scooter key, one
receipt and a black-coloured wallet containing Rs.2,255/- were also
recovered and taken in possession, vide memo Ex.PG.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 4
Thereafter, DSP took a glass of water and added sodium
carbonate to it. Colour of the solution did not change, but Pocket of the
trouser of the appellant was then dipped into the solution, whereupon
colour of the solution turned light pink. The solution was transferred into
a nip and sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘RSD’ of Ranjit Singh
Dhillon. The trouser was also taken in possession and sealed with the
same seal. Nip and the parcel containing trouser were sealed, vide memo
Ex.PH.
4. After completion of the investigation, final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 25.03.2002, and appellant was
charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act.
5. Prosecution examined eight witnesses.
* PW1-MHC Gurbhej Singh proved his affidavit Ex.PA.
* PW2-Senior Assistant Karnail Singh proved the sanction order
Ex.PB accorded by Sh. Babu Lal, Executive Director, PSC & LDC.
* PW3-Neena Gautam proved the original service book and posting
order of the appellant, Ex.PC, which were forwarded to the DSP,
Vigilance, vide letter Ex.P6.
* PW4-Dr. Varinder Singh proved his joining prior to the conduct of
the trap. He also proved the recovery of two currency notes of Rs.100/-
each, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, from the left pocket of the trouser of the
appellant, the tallying of their numbers and their seizure. He further
deposed regarding the dipping of the fingers of the appellant in the
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 5
sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. He also proved the
recoveries effected from the personal search of the appellant and their
seizure vide memo Ex.PG.
* PW5-Constable Karamjit Singh proved the loan application
submitted by the complainant in the office of the Punjab Scheduled
Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Patiala, about six
months prior to the occurrence, and also deposed regarding the
complainant having visited the office of the Corporation.
* PW6-Baljit Singh-complainant, testified that the DSP had called
two official witnesses, namely Dr. Varinder Singh and Dr. Bharat
Bhushan, in the office and thereafter they proceeded towards the office of
the appellant. According to him, appellant demanded money, which was
handed over to him.
PW6 also deposed regarding the mixing of sodium carbonate in the
glass of water and stated that the colour of the water did not change
initially, but upon the appellant putting his fingers into the solution, its
colour turned pink. He also proved the recoveries effected from the
personal search of the appellant.
* PW7-Balkar Singh (shadow witness), deposed that on 12.02.2001,
he had gone to the office of the SCLDC along with complainant Baljit
Singh regarding the loan. He stated that the appellant demanded Rs.200/-
from Baljit Singh for furnishing the dispatch number of the loan case.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 6
* PW8-Ranjit Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-II,
Patiala, deposed that on 12.02.2001 he was posted as DSP, Vigilance
Bureau, Flying Squad-II, Patiala, and that Baljit Singh along with Balkar
Singh came to him and got recorded the statement of the complainant. He
further deposed regarding the laying of the trap and recovery of the
tainted amount.
6. Specific defence taken by the appellant, while recording
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
a) In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded
that he was completely innocent and had been falsely implicated. He
denied having demanded any illegal gratification from complainant Baljit
Singh or having accepted any amount from him. According to the
appellant, loan file of the complainant had already been passed/cleared
and forwarded to the State Bank of Patiala, Bhadson Branch, on
30.01.2001.
b) Appellant further took the plea that Gurmail Singh, uncle of the
complainant's wife, had also taken a loan from the Punjab Scheduled
Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation. Since Gurmail
Singh had failed to repay the loan. Recovery warrant had been issued
against him by the Director of the Corporation, which thereafter was
marked to the Collector. The appellant stated that he was pursuing the
recovery proceedings in respect of the said loan.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 7
c) Appellant further stated that the father of witness Balkar Singh had
also taken a loan from the Bank, which also was not repaid. Recovery
warrant had been issued against him by the Corporation through the
District Revenue Officer, Patiala, and said matter had also been pursued
by the appellant against the father of Balkar Singh.
d) Appellant further stated that no work relating to the loan file of the
complainant was pending with him on the date of the raid. He also stated
that the father of Balkar Singh had been taken to the Tehsil Office,
Bhadson, where he subsequently deposited Rs.3,500/- and a receipt in
that regard was also issued.
7. In defence, the appellant examined Surinder Singh as DW1,
Sarjit Singh as DW2 and Joginder Singh Sohi as DW3, and thereafter
closed his defence evidence.
* DW1-Surinder Singh proved the Dispatch Register dated
30.01.2001, according to which the loan case of Baljit Singh had been
sent to the State Bank of Patiala, vide dispatch No.1517 dated
30.01.2001. He also proved the relevant entry in the Dispatch Register as
Ex.D1 and the corresponding entry in the stationed dak book as Ex.D2.
* DW2-Sarjit Singh deposed regarding his posting as Assistant
District Manager in the office of SCFC, Patiala, where the appellant was
also posted. He further deposed regarding the appellant accompanying
him in the official vehicle to the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Bhadson,
for recovery of loan amounts from the defaulters. For the said purpose,
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 8
they visited villages Faridpur, Akalgarh, Jindalpur, Dittupur and Chhanna
Nathuwalian. They also met Mohinder Singh in his fields, as he was not
found at his house, and he was taken to the office of the Naib Tehsildar,
Bhadson.
* DW3-Joginder Singh Sohi proved that, as per the record, case
No.1517 dated 30.01.2001 relating to Baljit Singh was received from the
District Manager, SCLDC, on 06.02.2001. He also proved the photocopy
of the relevant letter as Ex.P2.
He further deposed that letter Ex.D7 was sent to the Branch
Manager, SBOP, Bhadson, on 12.02.2001 through dispatch No.12160,
and proved the photocopy thereof as Ex.D8.
8. It is on the basis of the aforementioned evidence that
appellant was held guilty by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment
dated 18.02.2005.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. J.S.
Toor, submits that once the loan case of complainant Baljit Singh had
already been forwarded to the State Bank of Patiala vide dispatch
No.1517 dated 30.01.2001, as reflected in the Dispatch Register Ex.D1
and stationed dak book Ex.D2, there was no occasion for the appellant,
who was posted as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Punjab
Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, to
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 9
demand Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for furnishing the dispatch
number of the loan case on 12.02.2001.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, even assuming
the allegations to be correct for the sake of argument, it was open to the
complainant to examine the Dispatch Register Ex.D1 and stationed dak
book Ex.D2 to ascertain the dispatch number, which fact was proved by
DW1-Surinder Singh. Once no official work was pending with the
appellant, there was no occasion for him to demand illegal gratification.
It is, therefore, submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences
under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act are not established.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Ex.P6, stated to
be the receipt containing the dispatch number and allegedly handed over
by the appellant after receipt of the bribe amount of Rs.200/-, cannot be
relied upon as reliable evidence, as the receipt was not sealed and the
handwriting appearing thereon was never proved by any handwriting
expert. It is submitted that, in the absence of such evidence, the said
document could not have been relied upon against the appellant.
12. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the statements of the
defence witnesses to establish false implication. It is submitted that
Gurmail Singh, uncle of the complainant's wife, was also a loanee of the
same Corporation and, being a defaulter, had been served with a recovery
warrant. The recovery proceedings were conducted by the appellant
under the instructions of the superior officers.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 10
Reliance is also placed upon the testimony of DW2-Sarjit Singh,
Assistant District Manager, who, being an official witness, proved the
visits of the appellant to several villages for recovery of loan amounts.
13. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that DW3-Joginder
Singh Sohi proved the receipt of the loan case on 06.02.2001 in the office
where the appellant was posted as Junior Assistant, as well as the relevant
documents. He also proved that on 12.02.2001 the case was sent to the
Branch Manager, SBOP, Bhadson, vide dispatch No.12160.
It is, therefore, submitted that, apart from the dispatch
number, there were other means by which the complainant could have
obtained information regarding the status and dispatch of the loan case.
Instead, the complainant, with a motivated purpose, proceeded with the
official witnesses to implicate the appellant in a false case.
14. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector
of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152,
wherein it was observed that failure to prove the demand for illegal
gratification is fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the accused
would not, by itself, entail his conviction under Section 7 or Section 13
of the PC Act.
Reliance is also placed upon ‘ K. Shanthamma v. State of
Telangana’, Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2022, decided on 21.02.2022,
wherein, relying upon P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), Hon'ble
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 11
Supreme Court reiterated that demand is a sine qua non for establishing
an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
15. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the testimony
of PW7-Balkar Singh, the shadow witness, deserves to be viewed with
caution, as his father Mohinder Singh was a loan defaulter and had earlier
been proceeded against, for recovery by the appellant under the
supervision of DW2-Sarjit/Sarabjit Singh. It is submitted that the
appellant, along with the concerned officials, had visited several villages
for recovery of loan amounts from defaulters and had also taken
Mohinder Singh to the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Bhadson.
It is further submitted that Mohinder Singh's relatives had
thereafter deposited Rs.3,500/- before the Naib Tehsildar, Bhadson, and
the carbon copy of the receipt issued by the appellant-Sukhminder Singh
was proved on record as Ex.D3 along with entry dated 08.12.2000 as
Ex.D4.
16. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the statement of
the complainant Baljit Singh also carries an element of motive, as
Gurmail Singh, uncle of the complainant's wife, was earlier a loanee and
recovery proceedings had been conducted at his house by the appellant
along with other officials.
It is submitted that, in cross-examination, it was admitted
that Gurmail Singh Numberdar was married to Surjit Kaur, who was the
sister of the father-in-law of the complainant-Baljit Singh.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 12
17. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that both the
complainant and the shadow witness had sufficient reason to harbour a
grudge against the appellant. It is further submitted that no official work
relating to the loan was pending with the appellant and, consequently,
there was no occasion for him to demand or accept Rs.200/-. Learned
Senior Counsel accordingly prays that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be
acquitted.
Submissions on behalf of the State
18. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while defending
the impugned judgment, submits that, for constituting an offence under
Section 7 of the PC Act, complainant Baljit Singh (PW6) has proved the
demand of Rs.200/- for furnishing the dispatch number of the loan case.
The said demand is further corroborated by the testimony of the shadow
witness, PW7-Balkar Singh. It is submitted that the amount was accepted
by the appellant and was subsequently recovered from him during the
trap proceedings.
Learned State counsel submits that the learned Trial Court
rightly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including
the Investigating Officer (PW8), and that there is sufficient evidence
establishing the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount.
According to learned State counsel, the complete chain of circumstances
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 13
stands established and the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant are without merit.
19. Learned State counsel further relies upon the statutory
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act and submits that, once
acceptance of the gratification is established, the burden shifts upon the
appellant to rebut the statutory presumption. It is submitted that the
appellant failed to discharge the said burden and, therefore, the charges
stood duly proved.
20. Learned State counsel also relies upon the sanction order
Ex.PB granted by the competent authority for prosecution of the
appellant. It is submitted that the sanction, coupled with the statutory
presumption and recovery of the tainted amount, sufficiently establishes
the prosecution case. Learned State counsel, accordingly, submits that the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion and conclusion
21. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned
Senior Counsel representing the appellant and learned State counsel and
have carefully examined the evidence available on record, particularly
the statements of PW6-Baljit Singh, the complainant, and PW7-Balkar
Singh, the shadow witness.
22. From the evidence available on record, it stands established
that Gurmail Singh, uncle of the complainant's wife, was a loanee of the
Corporation where the appellant was posted and that recovery
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 14
proceedings had been conducted against him by the appellant along with
other officials in December, 2000. The record also contains a receipt from
Book No.3241, Serial No.21, showing payment of Rs.3,500/- on
08.12.2000 to the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and
Finance Corporation, Chandigarh. This aspect was proved by the defence
through DW2, who was then posted as Assistant District Manager in the
said Corporation.
23. The testimony of PW7-Balkar Singh, the shadow witness,
also does not provide substantial assistance to the prosecution. His father,
Mohinder Singh, was admittedly a loan defaulter and, in that regard, the
appellant had visited him along with the concerned revenue official for
recovery of the loan amount. The relationship of Balkar Singh-PW7 with
Mohinder Singh also stands established on record.
In these circumstances, the possibility of Balkar Singh-PW7
harbouring a grudge against the appellant cannot be completely ruled out,
particularly when the appellant had earlier participated in recovery
proceedings against his father.
24. Similarly, the relationship of the complainant Baljit Singh
with Gurmail Singh, against whom the appellant had earlier conducted
recovery proceedings, assumes significance while appreciating the
testimony of the complainant. The defence has placed material on record
to show that Gurmail Singh was related to the complainant through his
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 15
wife and that recovery proceedings had been conducted against him by
the appellant.
25. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the statements of PW6-
Baljit Singh and Balkar Singh-PW7 contain material discrepancies and
contradictions concerning the circumstances in which the trap was laid
and the events preceding the same. Their testimonies, therefore, require
careful scrutiny before they can be made the sole basis for sustaining the
conviction.
26. PW6-Baljit Singh stated categorically that he knew PW7-
Balkar Singh for the last 10-12 years. On the other hand, PW7-Balkar
Singh deposed that he knew PW6-Baljit Singh only for about 4-5 months
and had met him in the office of the appellant. The discrepancy regarding
the period for which the two witnesses claimed to have known each other
assumes significance while assessing their credibility and the
circumstances in which they came together for the trap proceedings.
27. PW6-Baljit Singh also deposed that he did not know
whether his loan case had already been processed and forwarded to the
State Bank before the date of occurrence or whether the file was still
lying with the Bank. This aspect assumes importance in view of the
documentary evidence produced by the defence showing that the loan
case had been dispatched earlier.
28. PW6-Baljit Singh further failed to disclose any specific date
or time when the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.200/- from him. The
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 16
absence of a specific account regarding the time and circumstances of the
alleged initial demand assumes significance, particularly when the
defence has produced documentary material indicating that the loan case
had already been forwarded.
29. PW7-Balkar Singh also admitted that his own loan case had
been rejected under the Bank's tie-up scheme. The evidence on record
further indicates that his father had earlier been proceeded against in
connection with recovery of a loan amount by the appellant.
30. Another circumstance which requires consideration is the
deposition of PW7-Balkar Singh that, when he and the complainant
approached DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon for the first time, the DSP was not
available. Consequently, they returned and thereafter visited his office
again after about ten days.
The existence of such an interval between the two visits
assumes significance because, during this period, there was sufficient
opportunity for consultation or deliberation before the trap was ultimately
laid.
31. PW7-Balkar Singh also stated that no personal search of the
Investigating Officer/DSP or complainant Baljit Singh was conducted
before the raid. This circumstance, when considered along with the other
discrepancies appearing in the prosecution evidence, further requires the
Court to exercise caution in relying upon the testimony of the
complainant and shadow witness.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 17
32. On the other hand, the defence has produced documentary
evidence regarding the dispatch of the loan case. DW1 proved the
Dispatch Register showing that the loan case of Baljit Singh had been
dispatched on 30.01.2001 vide dispatch No.1517. DW3 also proved the
relevant record regarding receipt and further dispatch of the case.
Thus, the documentary evidence led by the defence lends
support to the appellant's plea that the loan case had already been
forwarded and that there was no pending work relating to the said loan
case which required the appellant to furnish the dispatch number to the
complainant.
33. The defence taken by the appellant in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also substantially corroborated by the testimony of
DW1 to DW3. The defence evidence regarding the earlier recovery
proceedings against the relatives of the complainant and the shadow
witness also provides a plausible basis for the appellant's plea of false
implication.
34. The prosecution is required to establish the foundational
facts necessary for sustaining a conviction under the PC Act. In the
present case, the demand of illegal gratification is itself rendered doubtful
on account of the material discrepancies in the testimony of PW6-Baljit
Singh and PW7-Balkar Singh, coupled with the documentary evidence
regarding the prior dispatch of the loan case.
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 18
The mere recovery of the currency notes, therefore, cannot
by itself be treated as sufficient to sustain the conviction when the
evidence regarding the essential ingredient of demand is found to be
doubtful.
35. The law relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant also emphasizes the necessity of establishing the demand for
illegal gratification. In the facts of the present case, the evidence led by
the prosecution does not inspire sufficient confidence regarding the
alleged demand, particularly when considered alongside the defence
evidence and the material contradictions appearing in the testimony of
the complainant and shadow witness.
36. As regards the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the
PC Act, such presumption cannot be considered in isolation from the
foundational facts required to be established by the prosecution. In the
present case, for the reasons discussed above, the prosecution evidence
regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is not free
from reasonable doubt. The defence has also placed sufficient material on
record to render the prosecution version doubtful.
37. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW6-Baljit Singh
and PW7-Balkar Singh does not inspire confidence to the extent required
to sustain the conviction, particularly in view of their material
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

CRA-S-445-SB-2005 19
discrepancies, the background of the previous recovery proceedings
involving their close relatives, and the documentary evidence produced
by the defence regarding the dispatch of the loan case.
38. Consequently, present appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2005 passed by learned
Special Judge, Patiala, are set aside. Appellant-Sukhminder Singh is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
39. Appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of acquittal in
accordance with law. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by him shall stand
discharged.
40. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned  Yes/No
Whether reportable  Yes/No
LAVISHA
2026.09.09 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh