Tarlok Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
06 CRA-S-2268-SB-2004
Reserved on : 27.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
TARLOK SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

......APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
*
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. This is appeal against conviction. This appeal was preferred by the
convict ‘Tarlok Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as appellant only. The
above-named appellant passed away during the pendency of this appeal, but
his legal representatives requested for permission to pursue this appeal. By
virtue of order dated 03.07.2025 the above-said request was accepted.
2. The appellant was a public servant, serving as Junior Engineer in
Public Works Department (B&R) Moga. The FIR No.44 dated 25.04.1990 was
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 2
lodged against the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 in Police Station City Moga. The investigation in the above-mentioned
FIR was conducted, and thereafter, in view of final report submitted by the
police, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., a trial was conducted against the appellant
for the charge of commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The above-said trial
culminated into conviction of appellant, by virtue of judgment dated
06.11.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’. As an
outcome of above-mentioned judgment of conviction, by virtue of order dated
08.11.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ following
sentences were awarded to the appellant:-
Under Sections Sentence
13(2) read with Section
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above-
mentioned FIR came into being pursuant to a source information, received by
the police that appellant had amassed wealth beyond the known sources of his
income. According to prosecution, in view of above-mentioned information the
FIR was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the
period 01.01.1979 to 30.06.1987 the income of appellant from known sources
(of his income) was Rs.93,629.40/- and his total expenditure towards
household expenses was Rs.68,522.51/-. According to prosecution, in addition
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 3
to above-mentioned household expenses, the appellant had spent money
towards his savings and also for the purchase of immovable property. As per
prosecution on assessment it was found that the total value of expenses and the
property acquired by the appellant was Rs.2,18,046.16/-, which was beyond
the known sources of his income by Rs.1,24,216.76/-.
4. It was the case of the prosecution that during the course of
investigation the entire evidence with regard to income of the appellant and
known sources of his income was analysed, and it was found that the appellant
was having properties beyond the known sources of his income. Therefore, the
appellant was sent to stand trial for the aforementioned offences.
5. In order to prove its allegations, following witnesses were
examined by the prosecution during the course of trial;-
PW-1 Krishan Lal Mittal, an official of Public Works
Department
PW-2 Ram Sarup, an official of Public Works
Department
PW-3 Seeta Ram, an official of Allahabad Bank
PW-4 Baldev Raj Sharma, an official of Postal
Department
PW-5 K.C. Jindal, an official of UCO Bank
PW-6 Jiwan Lal, an official of PWD (B&R)
PW-7 Constable Baj Singh
PW-8 Netar Singh, an official of PWD (B&R)
PW-9 Harnek Singh, an official of PWD (B&R)
PW-10 Surinder Singh, an official of Electricity
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 4
Department
PW-11 Satish Kumar, an official of PWD (B&R)
PW-12 H.C. Harjinder Singh, the police official who
recorded the FIR
PW-13 Pushpinder Singh, an official of the office of
Registrar
PW-14 Banarsi Lal Mahajan, an official of Life
Insurance Corporate
PW-15 Rakesh Kaura, Account Officer Punjab
Alkalies and Chemical Ltd.
PW-16 HC Avtar Singh, an official of Punjab Vigilance
Bureau
PW-17 Inspector Mohan Singh, the Investigating
Officer of the case
PW-18 D.S. Bath, an officer of Punjab Directorate of
water resources
6. The above-mentioned witnesses during the course of examination
proved certain documents. Those documents were;-
EX. PA : Sanction order for the prosecution of
appellant Tarlok Singh
EX.PB : Copy of appointment letter of the
appellant Tarlok Singh
Ex.PC : Copy of the ledger of account No.2800
of the appellant
Ex.PD : Letter issued by Allahabad Bank
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 5
Moga, addressed to Inspector, Vigilance
Bureau, Punjab
Ex.PE: Certificate issued by Sub Postmaster
regarding bonds of appellant and his
wife
Ex.PF: Original ledger of account No.8925 of
appellant
Ex.PG : Letter dated 16.11.1988 issued by
UCO Bank to the Inspector,
Vigilance Bureau, Punjab
EX.PH : Letter No.443 dated 13.03.1991 issued
by Executive Engineer Construction
Division B&R Moga to Inspector,
Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot
Ex.PJ : Affidavit of Constable Baj Singh
Ex.PK : Letter dated 10.10.1988 issued by
Executive Engineer Construction
Division B&R Moga to Inspector,
Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot
Ex.PK/1 : Statement annexed with above-
mentioned letter
Ex.PL : : Letter dated 19.07.1988 issued by
Executive Engineer Construction
Division B&R Moga to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 6
Bureau, Faridkot
Ex.PM : Statement of salary of appellant for
the period May, 1987 and June 1987
Ex.PO : Letter of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot to
Executive Engineer PSEB, Moga
Ex.PO/1 : Endorsement, recorded by the Assistant
Executive Engineer on the above-
mentioned letter
Ex.PQ : Letter dated 05.12.1989 issued by
Executive Engineer Construction
Division B&R Ferozepur to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Bureau, Faridkot
Ex.PR : Copy of First Information Report No.8
dated 13.01.1988
Ex.PS : Statement of account of appellant Tarlok
Singh, being maintained by ‘Rampur
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.’ Rampur
Ex.PT : Statement of account of appellant Tarlok
Singh at Punjab & Sind Bank, Zira
Ex.PU : Copy of record related to enquiry
& No.13 dated 22.11.1987
Ex.PV
Ex.PW : The information-memo sent to the police
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 7
station (ruqqa)
Ex.PW/1 : Copy of First Information Report
Ex.PX : Order under Section 5(2) 47 read
with Section 5(1) E, of Prevention of
Corruption Act, issued by
Superintendent of Police, vigilance
Bureau, Ferozepur
Ex.PY : Letter dated 21.07.1989 issued by
Inspector Mohan Singh, Vigilance
Bureau, Faridkot, addressed to Officer
Incharge Life Insurance Corporate,
Moga
Ex.PY/1 : Details of installments of insurance
policy of the appellant
Ex.PAA : Report with regard to assessment of cost
of construction of house situated at
Moga
Ex.PAA/1 : Letter dated 07.11.1988 issued by the
Executive Engineer, Vigilance Bureau,
Punjab to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot
regarding assessment report for RE
13/87 Faridkot
Ex.PW13/A : Certified copy of sale deed dated
30.01.1979 executed by Baldev Singh
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 8
and Sukhvirpal Singh in favour of Rulda
Singh
Ex.PW15/A : Copy of letter written by Rakesh Kaura,
Assistant Accountant to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Bureau, Punjab Faridkot regarding
payment of cumulative deposit receipt
Ex.PW15/B : Copy of letter written by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Bureau, Faridkot to ‘M/s Punjab
Chemical Ltd.’ Chandigarh
Ex.PW15/C : Copy of letter written by S.S. Randhawa,
Accounts Office to Tarlok Singh
regarding refund of deposit receipt
Ex.PW15/D : Copy of letter written by Tarlok Singh to
‘Punjab Alkalies Chemical Limited’
Chandigarh
Ex.PW15/E : Copy of Deposit Receipt in the name of
Tarlok Singh with ‘Punjab Alkalies
Chemical Ltd.’
Ex.PW15/F : Copy of schedule issued from Punjab
National Bank
Ex.PW15/G : Copy of application form for fixed
Deposit/Cumulative Deposit with
‘Punjab Alkalies and Chemical Ltd.’
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 9
Ex.PW15/H : Copy of entries of account
7. Once the prosecution evidence had been recorded, the learned trial
Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313
CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the
appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant had examined two witnesses.
They were:-
DW-1 - Subhash Singh, a revenue official,
(Patwari)
DW-2 - Raj Kumar Sharma, an official of
Sugarcane Society
8. The appellant in the instant case had relied upon documentary
evidence also. The documents proved and marked with exhibit, by the
appellant, were:-
Ex.D-1 - Copy of revenue record, i.e. record of
possession, (Khasra) showing the details
of agriculture land in possession of
Rulda Singh
Ex.D-2 - Copy of revenue record, i.e. record of
possession (Khasra) showing the details
of agriculture land of in possession of
Tarlok Singh
Ex.D-3 - Copy of revenue record, i.e. record of
rights of the land owned by Tarlok Singh
Ex.D-4 - Copy of revenue record, i.e. record of
rights of the land owned by Rulda Singh
Ex.D-5 - Report of Tehsildar
Ex.D-6
&
Ex.D-7
- Certificates regarding payments made to
Tarlok Singh and Rulda Singh against
sale of the sugarcane
Ex.D-8 - Copy of sale deed dated 30.01.1979 in
the name of Rulda Singh
Ex.D-9 - Copy of sale deed dated 24.11.1988
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 10
executed by Rulda Singh in favour of
Balraj Sharma and Nirmal Sharma
9. Heard.
10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned trial Court committed an error of judgment when it failed to appreciate
that the prosecution had inflated the expenses attributed to the appellant and
ignored certain sources of income available to the appellant. According to
learned counsel for the appellant merely on the basis of presumptions and
assumptions this inference was drawn by the learned trial Court that the
appellant was living beyond the known sources of his income, and that in fact
all the sources of income of the appellant were not considered. As per learned
counsel for the appellant if all the sources of income of appellant and his
expenses would have been properly considered, it would have pasted an
altogether different picture.
11. With regard to known sources of income of the appellant, the
learned counsel for the appellant has contended that before the learned trial
Court it was categorically proved by the appellant that in addition to income
from salary, he was having additional income from agricultural land (owned by
him) also. As per learned counsel for the appellant to prove the above-
mentioned fact a reliable defence evidence was led by the appellant, wherein it
was duly proved that in the State of Uttar Pradesh appellant was owner of
agricultural land, admeasuring 2.822 hectares. To show the quantum of income
being generated from the above-mentioned land, the learned counsel for the
appellant has referred to the testimony of DW-2, who being an official of
sugarcane society proved that during the period under consideration, a total
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 11
sum of Rs.61,309.85/- was paid by the above-said society to the appellant for
the sale of sugarcane, produced in his agricultural land. While referring to
above-mentioned source of income, it has been contended by learned counsel
for the appellant that a grave error was committed by the learned trial Court,
when it ignored the above-mentioned source of income, merely by saying that
adequate evidence was not led to prove the above-mentioned income.
12. While assailing the above-mentioned finding of learned trial Court
it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the above-
mentioned approach adopted by the learned trial Court was not in consonance
with the settled principles of law, firstly because the law prescribes that
defence evidence has to be assessed by applying the rule of preponderance of
probabilities and secondly because the revenue record was per se admissible
and duly proved by DW1. As per learned counsel for the appellant, once it was
proved that appellant was owner of agriculture land at least some amount
should have been assessed, by the learned trial Court, towards the income
being generated from the above-mentioned agricultural land.
13. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has
further contended that the learned trial Court, merely, by saying that the DW-2
had not produced the original account books ignored his deposition, despite the
fact that the DW-2 had successfully faced the test of cross-examination. It has
also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that come what may,
the income from 2.822 hectares land should not have been treated to be Nil and
that some income from the above-said source should have been taken into
consideration.
14. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 12
that the learned trial Court was not only misguided with regard to quantum of
income of the appellant, but also qua the expenses incurred by the appellant
during the relevant period. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the
appellant has contended that while assessing the expenses incurred by the
appellant during the above-said period the household expenses were assessed
th
at inflated rate, i.e. ¾ of the income of the appellant, whereas as per rule of
prudence, it should not have been more than 60% of the known sources of
income.
15. While referring to the defect in the method of assessment towards
household expenses, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that a false picture was projected before the learned trial Court by the
Investigating Agency, and that the learned trial Court was swayed with the
above-mentioned false projection. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the assessment of
household expenses was on higher side in comparison to the expenses which
were actually incurred by the appellant and his family. The learned counsel for
the appellant has further contended that on the basis of conjectures and
surmises, the expenses of the appellant had been excessively assessed, i.e.
beyond the actual expenses, which were generally incurred by a public servant
and his family.
16. Lastly, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that one of the serious error of judgment committed by learned trial Court was
that a house which was purchased by the father of appellant, for a sum of
Rs.77,360/- was considered to be property acquired by the appellant, and thus,
the total expenses of appellant were held to be beyond his known sources of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 13
income. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the father of the
appellant himself was owner of agricultural land, which was duly proved by
DW-1 with the help of Ex.D1. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the
DW-2 had proved that by sale of sugarcane through sugarcane society, an
income of Rs.1,00,366.47/- was generated by the father of appellant. As per
learned counsel for the appellant since the income of the father of appellant
was more than the value of house purchased by him, there could not have been
an occasion for the learned trial Court to draw an inference that the appellant
had incurred the above-mentioned expenses from his on pocket.
17. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also
contended that since sale deed of the land underneath the above-mentioned
house was purchased by the father of the appellant, the expenses incurred for
the purchase of land and construction of house could not have been assessed
towards the expenses of the appellant.
18. In view of above-mentioned argument, it has been contended by
learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court wrongly believed
the false projection of income and expenses (both) of the appellant and arrived
at a wrong conclusion that the expenses incurred by the appellant during the
period in question, were beyond the known sources of his income. Thus, it has
been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the ‘impugned
judgment’ and the ‘impugned order’ are not sustainable and deserves to be set
aside.
19. The above-mentioned arguments have been controverted by
learned counsel for the respondent/State. It has been contended by learned
counsel for the respondent/State that on proper appreciation of fact as well as
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 14
law a right conclusion was drawn by the learned trial Court, and that the
learned trial Court rightly observed that the expenses incurred by the appellant
towards household expenses, investment/saving and purchase of property were
beyond his known sources of income. While defending the impugned
judgment, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent/State
that by twisting the facts the appellant is trying to project that he was innocent,
but the evidence produced by the prosecution proved otherwise.
20. According to learned counsel for the respondent/State the
investigation in the instant case was conducted in a proper manner and during
the course of investigation, it was found that total income generated by the
appellant from his known and legal sources of income was Rs.93,629.40/-,
whereas the expenses incurred by him, towards savings/investments,
household expenses and purchase of property were Rs.2,18,046.16/-. In view
of above, the learned counsel for the respondent/State has contended that the
expenses incurred by the appellant were beyond his known sources of income
by a sum of Rs.1,24,216.76/-.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has also contended
that a right view was taken by learned trial Court when it observed that
expenses for the purchase of house were incurred by the appellant. According
to learned counsel for the respondent/State although the appellant tried to
project that the above-mentioned house was purchased by his father, but the
above-mentioned claim of the appellant stood belied from the fact that at the
time of execution of sale deed of the land, underneath the above-mentioned
house, the appellant himself (not his father) appeared before the Registrar as
representative of the vendee. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 15
further contended that the above-mentioned observation was strengthened from
the fact that electric connection for the house was issued in the name of wife of
appellant. According to learned counsel for the respondent-State, if father of
appellant was owner of the property firstly he (father of the appellant) was
supposed to be present at the time of execution of sale deed and secondly
electric connection for the above-mentioned house would have been in the
name of father of appellant. As per learned counsel for the respondent-State by
assessing the overall scenario, it was rightly concluded by the learned trial
Court that expenses for the purchase of land and construction of house were
incurred by the appellant.
22. With regard to claim of appellant that he was owner of agricultural
land and the income generated from above-mentioned land was not considered
by the Investigating Agency, and also by the learned trial Court, it has been
contended by learned counsel for the respondent-State that such income could
have been considered only if the income generated from agricultural land
would have been proved with the help of reliable evidence by the appellant. As
per learned counsel for the respondent/State any such evidence was not led by
the appellant, and that the testimony of DW-2 qua above-mentioned aspect was
inadmissible in evidence, as the original account books were not produced by
DW-2.
23. In view of above-mentioned arguments, it has been contended by
learned counsel for the respondent-State that this argument of learned counsel
for the appellant has got no force that any error of judgment was committed by
the learned trial Court, while holding that charge against the appellant was
successfully proved. As per learned counsel for the respondent-State, the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 16
appellant was rightly held guilty, and that present appeal is devoid of merits.
Thus, dismissal of appeal has been sought by the counsel for the
respondent/State.
24. The record has been perused carefully.
25. As far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution was concerned,
to prove its allegations, the prosecution had examined ‘Krishan Lal Mittal’ an
official in the office of Chief Engineer PWD (B&R) Patiala as PW-1. The
PW-1 simply proved that sanction for the prosecution of appellant Ex.PA was
accorded by the competent authority.
26. The next witness examined as PW-2, ‘Ram Sarup’, had proved
that vide order Ex.PB the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer in Public
Works Department (B&R), on 08.12.1972.
27. The next witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Seeta Ram’.
He was examined as PW-3. The PW-3 had deposed that he was an employee of
Allahabad Bank. The PW-3, with the help of ledger proved the bank account
statement of appellant. According to PW-3, the above-mentioned account was
a joint account in the name of appellant and his wife.
28. The next witness examined as PW-4, ‘Baldev Raj Sharma’, was an
employee of Postal Department, who proved that bonds for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- were purchased by the appellant and his wife on 22.03.1986, and
that date of maturity of above-mentioned bonds was 22.03.1992.
29. The PW-5 ‘K.C. Jindal’ was an employee of UCO Bank, who with
the help of ledger being maintained in the bank proved the copy of ledger of
bank account of the appellant, as Ex.PF.
30. The next witness examined as PW-6, ‘Jiwan Lal’, was an official
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 17
of PWD (B&R). His testimony, too, was formal in nature. According to PW-6
in 1986 the appellant was transferred from ‘Moga’ to ‘National Highway
Ludhiana Division’, and that he had not joined there. According to PW-6 from
01.09.1986 till 30.04.1987 no salary was paid to the appellant.
31. The PW-7 ‘Baj Singh’, too, was a formal witness, who proved his
affidavit Ex.PJ. The PW-7 had sworn that the information-memo for
registration of FIR was carried by him from the office of Vigilance Bureau to
Police Station City Moga.
32. The next witness examined as PW-8, ‘Netar Singh’, was an
official of PWD (B&R) Moga. His testimony, too, was formal in nature. The
PW-8 had deposed that on 10.10.1988 a sum of Rs.2,22,404.25/- was debited
to the miscellaneous advance of the appellant. The above-mentioned details
were proved by PW-8 as Ex.PK/1. However, in his cross-examination, the PW-
8 testified that he was not carrying the original record.
33. The next witness examined as PW-9 ‘Harnek Singh’, too, was an
official of PWD (B&R) Department. The PW-9 had proved the letter Ex.PL,
whereby the salary drawn by appellant during the period 01.11.1980 to
31.08.1986 was proved. According to PW-9 the salary drawn by the appellant
during the above-mentioned period was Rs.75,219.75/-.
34. The prosecution had examined an official of Electricity
Department also. He was ‘Surinder Singh’. He was examined as PW-10. The
PW-10 had deposed that the electricity connection for the house was issued in
the name of ‘Satinder Kaur’, the wife of the appellant.
35. The PW-11 ‘Satish Kumar’ was another official of PWD (B&R)
Circle, Ferozepur. The PW-11 had proved the salary details of appellant for the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 18
period January 1979 to June 1979.
36. The PW-12 ‘Head Constable Harjinder Singh’ was a formal
witness, who had proved that formal FIR of this case was lodged by him.
37. The PW-13 ‘Pushpinder Singh’ had proved the sale deed dated
30.01.1979 as Ex.PW13/A. According to PW-13 the sale of above-mentioned
piece of land was by ‘Baldev Singh’ and ‘Sukhvirpal Singh’ in favour of
‘Rulda Singh’ son of ‘Madan Singh’. According to PW-13 at the time of
execution of sale deed the appellant had appeared before the Registrar on
behalf of vendee.
38. The next witness examined by the prosecution, as PW-4, was
‘Banarsi Lal Mahajan’. He was an official of Life Insurance Corporation, who
proved that the life insurance policy was purchased by the appellant.
39. The PW-15 ‘Rakesh Kaura’ was account officer of ‘Punjab
Alkalies and Chemical Limited’. On the basis of summoned record the PW-15
had proved that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the appellant and his
wife for cumulative deposit in the above-mentioned company on 04.04.1985
through ‘Punjab National Bank’.
40. The next witness examined as PW-16 was ‘HC Avtar Singh’. He
was a police official, who deposed that on 28.05.1990 when he was posted in
Vigilance Bureau Faridkot the record pertaining to present case was produced
by him before ‘Inspector Mohan Singh’, which was seized by Inspector Mohan
Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PX. As per PW-16 later on, i.e. on 22.08.1990,
also he had produced the record related to enquiry and the same was seized by
the above-named Investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex.PV.
41. ‘Inspector Mohan Singh’ was the Investigating Officer of the case.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 19
He was examined by the prosecution as PW-17. The PW-17 proved various
steps taken by him during the course of investigation of the case. It was
specifically deposed by the PW-17 that during the course of investigation when
assessment of known sources of income of the appellant and the expenses,
incurred by him, were computed, it was found that the expenses of appellant
were beyond the known sources of his income.
42. The last witness examined by the prosecution ‘D.S. Bath’, as PW-
18, was a Senior Officer of Punjab Directorate of Water Resources. According
to PW-18, he had assessed the value of the house of appellant situated at Moga
and submitted a report. The PW-18 had proved his report as Ex.PAA.
43. To rebut the above-mentioned evidence, the appellant had
examined Subash Singh Revenue Patwari of village ‘Manpur Uttri’ District
‘Rampur’ as DW-1. The DW-1 on the basis of revenue record proved that
appellant was owner of agricultural land admeasuring 2.822 hectares, whereas
the father of appellant namely ‘Rulda Singh’ was owner of land admeasuring
5.302 hectares. The revenue record, i.e. the record of rights (khatoni)
pertaining to land owned by ‘Tarlok Singh’, the appellant, was proved, by DW-
1, as Ex.D-3 and of the father of the appellant as Ex.D-4. In addition to above
with the help of Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2, the DW-1 proved that the above-mentioned
land was in possession of appellant and his father, respectively, and that they
were cultivating the same.
44. Another witness examined by the appellant was ‘Raj Kumar
Sharma’ an official of ‘Co-operative Cane Development Union Bajpur’. The
DW-2 had brought the official record with regard to purchase of sugarcane
from the appellant and his father, during the cultivating season 1978-79 to
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 20
1986-87. With regard to above, the documents Ex.D-6 and D-7 were proved by
DW-2. The DW-2 had testified that D-6 was relating to payment made to
appellant for the sale of sugarcane to the society during the above-mentioned
period, whereas Ex.D-7 was containing the details of money paid to the father
of the appellant towards sale of sugarcane.
45. I have given my due consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case and the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties.
46. In the present case, at the very out-set it is pertinent to mention
here that the details of income of appellant during the period 01.01.1979 to
30.06.1987 (eight and half years) as assessed by the Investigating Agency was
as under:-
i. Income of accused from salary: Rs.91,363.35/-
ii. Amount of interest: Rs. 105.00/-
iii. Amount of interest: Rs. 62.40/-
iv. Amount of interest: Rs. 36.18/-
v. Amount of interest: Rs. 6.54/-
vi. Balance at the beginning of the check period:Rs. 2,036.00/-
vii. Balance at the beginning of the check period:Rs. 19.93/-
Total Income Rs. 93,629.40/-
47. On the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution the
expenses incurred by the appellant during the aforementioned period towards
his savings/investments, purchase of property and household expenses were as
under:-
i. Household expenses (3/4th of Income): Rs.68,522.51/-
ii. Amount deposited in insurance policy: Rs.20,277.00/-
iii. Amount deposited in bank: Rs. 91.00/-
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 21
iv. Amount deposited in bank: Rs. 162.40/-
v. Amount deposited in bank : Rs. 56.18/-
vi. Amount deposited in bank: Rs. 26.47/-
vii. Amount spent on construction of house: Rs.77,360.00/-
viii. Purchased scooter: Rs.12,000.00/-
ix. Purchased T.V.: Rs.7,550.00/-
x. Purchased room cooler: Rs. 1,500.00/-
xi. Stolen cash: Rs. 10,500.00/-
xii. Amount deposited in PO Moga: Rs. 10,000.00/-
xiii. Amount deposited in Alkalis Chandigarh Rs. 10,000.00/-
Total Expenditure Rs. 2,18,046 . 16 /-
48. If the above-discussed facts and figures are taken into
consideration the total expenses incurred by the appellant during the
aforementioned period appears to be beyond his known sources of income, by
a sum of Rs.1,24,216.76/-.
49. Now, it has to be adjudicated upon, as to whether the above-
mentioned assessment made by the prosecution and believed by the learned
trial Court was in consonance with the settled principles of law or not.
50. With regard to his known sources of income it was claimed by the
appellant that in addition to income from salary and interest on investment, he
was having one more source of income, i.e. agriculture. According to
appellant, he was owner of land admeasuring 2.822 hectares. To prove above-
mentioned plea, the appellant not only produced the revenue record, i.e. record
of rights (Khatoni) as Ex.D3, but also examined the revenue official to prove
the above-mentioned revenue record. Such revenue official was DW-1. The
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 22
DW-1 had thoroughly supported the claim of the appellant.
51. With regard to above-mentioned evidence, it is relevant to
mention here that as per settled principles of law the record of rights being
prepared by the revenue officials in discharge of official duty is per se
admissible, unless rebutted by the opposite party. In the present case there was
no such rebuttal. Even the cross-examination of DW-1 could not impeach the
credibility of above-mentioned claim of the appellant that he was owner of a
land admeasuring 2.822 hectares, which comes out to be 6.925 acres (approx.).
Thus, in my considered opinion the appellant had been successful in proving
that he was owner of the agricultural land admeasuring 2.822 hectares.
52. To prove the income being generated from the above-mentioned
agricultural land, the appellant had examined an official of ‘Co-operative Cane
Development Union Bajpur’ as DW-2. The DW-2 proved the record Ex.D-6,
showing that during the period under consideration the appellant had sold
sugarcane worth Rs.59,163.25/- to the above-mentioned society. The above-
mentioned document was proved by the DW-2, who was an independent
witness and his cross-examination could not impeach the credibility of his
testimony.
53. With regard to defence evidence this fact cannot be ignored that
the law prescribes that defence evidence is not supposed to be analyzed by
applying the same standard, which is prescribed for analysis of prosecution
evidence. The law prescribes that in defence any fact has to be proved by the
accused (appellant in the present case) by applying the principles of
preponderance of probabilities only, and not beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 23
54. With regard to above, reliance can be placed upon the principles
of law propounded in the case of ‘Vaibhav vs The State of Maharashtra
2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 194’, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that there is a significant difference in the evidentiary
burden to be discharged by the prosecution and the accused. According to
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the former is expected to discharge its burden
beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the latter is only required to prove a defence
on the anvil of preponderance of probability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has further observed that if the accused leads defence evidence in the
course of criminal trial, the same ought to be tested as probable or improbable
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
55. If the above-mentioned standard would have been applied in the
present case the testimony of DW-2 and the contents of Ex.D-6 coupled with
the testimony, of DW-1 and contents of Ex.D-3 were good enough to prove
that in addition to income considered by the Investigating Agency, the
appellant was having another source of income, i.e. agricultural land
admeasuring 2.822 hectares (approximately 6.925 acres).
56. However, the income of the appellant, from the above-mentioned
source was not considered by the learned trial Court, and the above-mentioned
evidence was brushed aside merely by saying that DW-2 had not produced the
original record. In my opinion the DW-2 being an independent witness, who
was a serving official of Co-operative Society carried a good prohibitive value
and once he had offered himself for cross-examination and in the cross-
examination the credibility of his testimony could not be impeached, in view
of principles propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 24
Vaibhav (supra) the contents of deposition of DW-2 and Ex.D-6, should have
been believed by the learned trial Court.
57. In view of above-mentioned observations, in my considered
opinion the learned trial Court while assessing the known sources of income of
the appellant, faltered when it ignored that a sum of Rs.59,163.25/- was earned
by the appellant by sale of one agriculture produce, i.e. sugarcane.
58. Here this fact cannot be ignored that with the help of DW-2, the
appellant had proved the income generated from the agricultural land, owned
by him, by sale of one crop only, i.e. sugarcane. However, it is relevant to note
here that in addition to sugarcane during the aforementioned period there
might have been other crops also and the income must have been generated
from those agricultural produce also. The above-mentioned income might have
met the expenses incurred by the appellant in growing and cultivating the
sugarcane in his field. Thus, in my considered opinion atleast the income of
appellant from the above-said sources should have been considered to be
Rs.59,163.25. If the above-said amount would have been computed towards to
the income of appellant from other sources, it would have been Rs.93,629.40/-
+ 59,163.25/- =1,52,792.65/-.
59. As far as the assessment of total expenses incurred by the
appellant was concerned, according to prosecution the appellant had incurred
expenses of Rs.2,18,046.16/- during the aforementioned period. However,
while computing the above-mentioned expenses one of the major expenses
considered by the Investigating Agency, and accepted by the learned trial Court
was the expenditure incurred in purchase of land and construction of house
worth Rs.77,360.00/-. With regard to above-mentioned expenses, it is relevant
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 25
to mention here that it was an admitted fact that the land underneath, the
above-mentioned house was purchased in the name of father of the appellant
namely ‘Rulda Singh’. There was no denial of the fact that the sale deed of
above-mentioned land was executed in favour of father of appellant. However,
the learned trial Court while combining two facts, i.e. presence of appellant at
the time of execution of sale deed, as representative of vendee, and release of
electric connection for the above-mentioned house in the name of wife of
appellant, observed that the above-mentioned house was actually purchased by
the appellant from his own sources, in the name of his father ‘Rulda Singh’.
60. The above-mentioned observations of learned trial Court would
have been correct if the prosecution would have proved that father of appellant
was not having any source of income. However, in the instant case with the
help of DW-1, the appellant had proved that his father was owner of 5.302
hectare (approximately 13.01 acres) of agricultural land. With the help of
DW-2, the appellant had further proved that total income generated from the
above-mentioned agricultural land, by sale of sugarcane was Rs.1,00,366.47/-.
The above-mentioned income of the father of the appellant was more than the
cost incurred in purchase of land for the house, and construction of the same
(as assessed by the Investigating Agency), i.e. Rs.77,360/-.
61. Here it shall not be out of place to mention that except the
inference drawn from the circumstances there was no positive evidence, led by
the prosecution, to prove that money for the purchase of above-mentioned land
was spent by the appellant. If the observations recorded by the learned trial
Court are considered in the light of above-mentioned facts, in my considered
opinion the defence taken by the appellant was more probable and plausible,
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 26
that expenditure for the purchase of land and construction of house were
incurred by his father. Since it was an admitted fact that appellant was son of
the vendee of above-mentioned land, in my considered opinion, the presence
of appellant as representative of his father at the time of execution of sale deed
was not unnatural.
62. In addition to above this argument of learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be ignored that being son, the appellant had got a right to stay
in the house constructed by his father, and that simply because the electric
connection was issued in the name of wife of appellant, this inference could
not have been drawn that the expenses for the construction of above-mentioned
house were incurred by the appellant. In fact to prove the same some positive
evidence should have been there, but it was not.
63. With regard to above, it is also relevant to mention here that it was
the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
that expenses for the purchase of land and construction of house were incurred
by the appellant, but the learned trial Court merely on the basis of assumptions
and presumptions (in view of above-mentioned two factors) concluded that
expenses for the construction of house were incurred by the appellant. In my
considered opinion in the absence of any positive evidence such inference
should not have been drawn and in view of the fact that there was positive
defence evidence showing the sources of income of the vendor of the land, i.e.
father of the appellant, the conclusion that expenses for the construction of
house were incurred by the appellant was apparently wrong. If the above-
mentioned expenses are not taken into consideration the total expenses
incurred by the appellant during the aforementioned period would come out to
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 27
be Rs.2,18,046.16-77,360=Rs.1,40,686.16/-.
64. If the above-mentioned facts and figures would have been
properly analyzed by the learned trial Court, the total expenses incurred by the
appellant would have been less than income generated by the appellant from
known sources.
65. In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that while
assessing the expenses incurred by the appellant towards household expenses,
it was considered by the Investigating Agency, and duly believed by the
th
learned trial Court, that ¾ of the income must have been spent by the
appellant towards his household expenses. Thus, the above-mentioned
expenses were assessed to be Rs.68,522.51/-. However, the rule of prudence
which is duly supported with Rule 10.13(A)(2) of Punjab Financial Rules
provides that an employee of Punjab Government is entitled to save up to 60%
of his salary. If an employee is entitled to save 60% of his salary, it means that
he is permitted to meet his household expenses by spending 40% of his carry
home salary. If the same method would have been adopted in the present case,
the total household expenses of Rs.68,522.51/- would have come down to
Rs.37,451.76/-. Thus, the income from known sources of income of appellant
would have been much more than the actual expenses incurred by the appellant
during the above-mentioned period.
66. Taking into consideration the facts and figures discussed above, in
my considered opinion a wrong conclusion was drawn by learned trial Court
while observing that the expenses of appellant were beyond the known sources
of his income, and that he was guilty of commission of offence punishable
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-2268-SB-2004 28
Corruption Act, 1988. In my considered opinion the above-mentioned
observations recorded by the learned trial Court being erroneous and perverse
requires interference and indulgence of appellate jurisdiction vested in this
Court. Thus, it is hereby held that by accepting the present appeal the
impugned judgment of conviction of appellant deserves to be set aside.
67. As a sequel to above-mentioned observations, the present appeal
is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction as well as
impugned order on quantum of sentence are hereby set aside and the appellant
is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
30.10.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
vipin Whether reportable Yes/No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document