P&H High Court Orders Acquittal In 26-Year-Old Judicial File Theft Case, Says Suspicion Is Not Proof

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted the accused in a case involving the theft of a judicial file from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, holding that the prosecution had, at best, raised suspicion but failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the offence. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 304]

Justice Mandeep Pannu said, "The mere presence of Satnam Singh in the Court at the relevant time, followed by the disappearance of the file, could certainly give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof."

The case arose from the disappearance in June 2000, of a judicial file (State v. Gurmit Singh, arising out of an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC) from the dais of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, shortly before the case was listed for consideration on charge.

An FIR for theft was registered, and the investigation led to the arrest of four persons , Pradeep Kumar, Darshan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh (a court driver), on the theory that they had orchestrated the theft to destroy evidence in the case pending against them. A fifth accused, Gurmit Singh, was declared a proclaimed offender. During interrogation, Darshan Singh allegedly made a disclosure statement claiming he had burnt the file.

The trial court acquitted all four accused under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence), finding that the key witness to the alleged burning had not supported the prosecution, but convicted them under Section 380 IPC (theft) based on the presence of Satnam Singh in the court premises and related testimony. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge went further, upholding the theft conviction, enhancing the sentence, and also convicting the accused under Section 201 IPC, holding that the file had been stolen in concert to screen the accused from prosecution.

Both convictions were challenged before the High Court. By the time the revisions were decided in 2026, three of the four accused , Satnam Singh, Darshan Singh and, it appears from the case title, at least one other had died during the pendency of the proceedings; the revision stood abated qua Darshan Singh, while Satnam Singh's petition was pursued by his legal representative.

Justice Pannu after hearing the submissions noted that PW-1 Hardial Singh — the sole witness cited to the alleged burning of the file,  had completely resiled, denying his police statement and denying acquaintance with Darshan Singh, leaving no evidence that the file had in fact been destroyed by him.

On the Section 380 IPC charge, the Court found that while PW-5 (the Court Reader) and PW-6 (the then CJM) established that Satnam Singh had entered and left the courtroom around the time the file went missing, this only proved presence, not removal of the file. The evidence of PW-4 regarding an alleged handover of the file among the accused was undermined by the prosecution's failure to examine the person before whom the extra-judicial confession implicating them was allegedly made — a lapse the Court held left "a significant gap in the prosecution case regarding the alleged conspiracy.

As to Balwinder Singh specifically, the Court held that no overt act was attributed to him at all, and that "mere presence of an accused along with the other persons, without any further reliable evidence demonstrating his participation... cannot by itself be made the basis of conviction."

The Court was also critical of the Appellate Court's approach in convicting under Section 201 IPC despite the trial Court's own finding, undisturbed by evidence, that PW-1 had not supported the burning allegation — holding that suspicious circumstances had been impermissibly converted into a finding of guilt.

Allowing both revision petitions, the Court set aside the judgement.

Title: Satnam Singh (since deceased) through his LR Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Click here to read order