INDERJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 13-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_.....,., 
INDERJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JULY 13, 1995 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
'""' 
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Sections 466, 468, 471, 477-A and 120B-Of-
fence of Criminal misappropriation and conspiracy-Case of embezzlement 
by deliberately falsifying records by government officers-Circumstantial c 
evidence-Mere over payment to w01kers on account of less work done-Not 
sufficient evidence to convict accused-Cliain of circumstantial evidence not 
complete-Conviction based on sumiise and conjecture-Not legally sus-
tainable. 
The Government of India initiated a crash scheme of rural employ-
D 
ment to give relief in the rural areas by executing some intensive projects 
to give employment on all the districts in the state of Punjab. Under the 
~ 
terms of the scheme, for each district, ten lacs of rupees were allocated 
and over and above, a sum of rupees two and a half lacs were also allowed 
for implementing the scheme. Six projects were started by the Public E 
Works Department (drainage section) in the district of Amritsar. The 
projects were meant to desilt six drains and the amount allotted to each 
of the six projects were expected to be spent by the end of the financial 
year, March 31, 1972. A complaint was filed to the Chief Engineer 
' .. 
(drainage) alleging that although huge amounts were reportedly spent on 
desilting a drain but actually nothing had been done at the spot. Superin· F 
tending Engineer (Vigilance) was ordered to enquire into the allegations. 
Reports submitted indicated embezzlement of huge amount by the officials 
~~ 
concerned in implementing the said projects. Investigations were con-
ducted and six first information reports were registered pertaining to all 
the six projects. Amongst the accused, Executive Engineer was stated to be G 
man-incharge of all these projects and the other accused persons were 
sub-Divisional Officers, Sectional Officers, Sub-Divisional Clerks . 
.,.. 
According to the prosecution, the embezzlements were pursuant to 
criminal conspiracy of the accused persons and while perpetrating the 
offences, they had also forged and falsified the records as genuine. The H 
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R. 
A 
prosecution produced a number of witnesses to prove that although 
vouchers had been prepared in their names, they had neither worked on 
such projects nor did they receive any payment. The prosecution also 
prepared the list of the .labourers whose names were mentioned in the 
vouchers and alleged that a number of such persons did not reside within 
B a radius of four miles from the site of work. Some labourers were examined 
who admitted that they had worked in those projects and they had also 
signed out some of the vouchers but they stated that they were paid less 
amount than what was shown in the vouchers. According to the prosecu-
I-
tion, the thumb impression taken by the police were compared with the 
thumb impressions on the vouchers said to have been affixed by the 
c labourers but it was found that the thumb impressions of the officials 
tallied with some of the thumb impressions on the vouchers. The prosecu-
tion relied on the alleged confession made by Sub- Divisional Officer and 
Sectional Officer before Superintending Engineer, who had been deputed 
to conduct investigation on the spot. The Special Judge after considering 
D 
the evidence adduced in the case convicted and sentenced all the accused 
u/s 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/ss 466, 468, 471, 
477-A_and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 
In appeal, the High Court while giving the benefit of doubt to the 
E 
Executive Engineer and also to the Sub Divisional Clerk, confirmed the 
convictions of the other accused. The High Court held that there was no 
direct evidence against the accused persons _in support of the charges 
levelled against them; that the testimony of those witnesses produced by 
the prosecution to prove that they had neither worked on such projects 
nor did they receive any payment, had lost its value because it was not 
F 
possible to come to a conclusion that they were the same persons in whose . 
•' 
names the vouchers were prepared; that the list of labourer!' also suffered 
from the same disability; that it was difficult to rely upon the testimony of 
those witnesses who stated that they were paid less amount than what was 
shown in the vouchers as the said labourers were examined ten years 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.