BAKSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1966-8-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on August 31,1966

BAKHSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF HARYANA VS. KEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1998-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. TIKA RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2005-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-407] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SUVARNNAMMA [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
B R BANSAR & ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-307] [REFERRED]
VASU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARILAL VS. LALCHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL CH BAIDYA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND KHAS MOHAMAD BASALATAILL VS. PRABHATKUMAR SHANTARAM RANGNEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1984-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL NAYEK VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1986-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
MITHAN MISRA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
MONGCHAJAI MOG VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SWARAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. LALTU MAHAPATRA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
T K RAMAMANI VS. AKKALA RAMA SAIBABA [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE THROUGH CBI [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KISHORE KUMAR RAI [LAWS(PAT)-2004-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-349] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-193] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-361] [REFERRED TO]
S JAYAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1999-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR NATH KAUL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-1983-4-28] [RELIED ON]
UMESHPAL SINGH KUSHWAH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1996-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANT MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1988-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
TARAK NATH GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
FREDRICK GEORGE VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2002-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhargava, J. - (1.)These six appeals, filed on the basis of certificates granted by the High Court of Punjab, arise out of a single Judgment of that Court, and consequently, they have been heard together. Two of the appeals Nos. 150 and 151 of 1962 have been brought up by Bakhshish Singh Dhaliwal (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") against his convictions on three different charges of cheating under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code which were upheld by the High Court. The remaining four appeals Nos. 196 to 199 of 1962 have been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences of cheating on some other counts recorded by the High Court.
(2.)There were all together four trials before a Special Tribunal originally constituted under ordinance 29 of 1943. In these four trials, the appellant was charged for having committed ten different offences of cheating by making representations to the Government of Burma and obtaining payments of money to the extent of over Rs. 6 lakhs which included payments in respect of works which had not been carried out by him as a contractor, though he claimed that the work had been done and he was entitled to payment in respect of those works.
(3.)The facts which are relevant for the decision of these appeals fall under a very short compass. In the year 1942, the Government of Burma and the Allied Forces operating there were compelled to leave Burma as a result of the Japanese invasion. For purposes of evacuation from Burma and the defence of that country, the Government of Burma and the army had to execute certain works of the nature of construction of roads, repairs and construction of bridges, strengthening and repairing of old tracks and converting railway lines into motor roads. Some of these works were executed by the army itself, while others were entrusted to contractors.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.