Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash vs State on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1086/2014
Subhash Joshi
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
15/03/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, prayed that the misc. petition may kindly be
allowed and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases) Udaipur dated
25.06.2014 in Criminal Regular Case No. 37/2011 may kindly be
set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from the
offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(1) (d) and
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."
3. The facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that one Mr. Naru Lal, filed
an F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 314/2008 before the ACB Chowki,
Udaipur, stating that when he sought to collect pending payments,
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:44:00 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLR-1086/2014]
for works already completed by him, from the Panchayat Samiti,
Kumbalgarh, and that during his meetings with the concerned
B.D.O. and the Pradhan of the said Panchayat Samiti for the same,
an illegal demand of a bribe for Rs.22,000/- was made from him.
And that, after filing of the F.I.R., the concerned Deputy
Superintendent of Police arranged trap proceedings, wherein on
audio tapes it was ascertained that the B.D.O. was in fact
demanding and taking bribes in connection with release of the
pending payments of the complainant Mr. Naru Lal. And that,
subsequently, the A.C.B. submitted a charge sheet against the
said B.D.O. and the petitioner, who is a Junior Engineer (under
suspension).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
submitted an application before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Udaipur seeking to be discharged from any liability, in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 37/2011, arising out of the F.I.R.No. 314/2008
stating that there was not an iota of evidence against the
petitioner. and that the Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Cases), Udaipur passed an order, dated 25.06.2014,
wherein a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections
7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC was found to be
made out, and accordingly, the said application was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
following judgments;
(a) 2012 (9) SCC 257 Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja;
(b) Govind Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan (Cri.
Misc. Petition No.989/2017, decided by this Hon'ble Court
on 11.05.2017);
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:44:00 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLR-1086/2014]
(c) Ms. Shreya Jha Vs. CBI, (S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.
584/2006 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on
28.05.2007;
(d) State of Raj. Vs. Keshav Dev & Anr., RLR 1999(2) 414;
(Raj.) and
(e) 2009 (1) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 778 State of Rajasthan Vs.
Narayan Lal & Anr.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that the
impugned order, dated 25.06.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur has been passed
after rightly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the
present case and on the finding that the petitioner was working
closely with the concerned B.D.O. and was in charge of handling of
the day to day affairs regarding construction matters of the
Panchayat Samiti, and that prima facie a case against the
petitioner under the aforementioned provisions of law was rightly
made out by the learned Court below.
7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case and judgments cited at the Bar.
8. This Court observes that the impugned order, dated
25.06.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Cases), Udaipur is a well reasoned and speaking order,
which has been passed after taking into due consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order lays out
clear and cogent reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that a
prima facie case, under the aforementioned provisions of law
against the petitioner is made out, and that the petitioner, while
holding the post of Junior Engineer at the Panchayat Samiti,
Kumbalgarh, District Rajsamand, although was not directly
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:44:00 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLR-1086/2014]
involved in taking bribes, nor mentioned in the incriminating audio
evidence obtained by the complainant, but he worked in close
proximity with the concerned B.D.O. and was directly tasked with
supervision and management of the construction activities for
which the concerned B.D.O. would take bribes, and that the
petitioner if not directly involved in the act would have knowledge
and involvement, and that there was sufficient evidence on the
record to make out a charge under the aforementioned provisions
of law against the petitioner.
9. This Court also takes note of the judgments cited at the Bar
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and observes that the
case laws do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. In Subramanian (supra), the Court observed that
mere suspicion cannot replace the place of evidences and proof, as
is not the case in the present petition. In Govind Singh (supra),
the trap proceedings laid down by the A.C.B failed and the quality
of the audio was clear enough to prosecute the petitioner. In
Shreya (supra), the Court observed that merely opening bank
accounts in the name of the father would not make the petitioner
daughter liable under 120-B IPC. In State of Rajasthan Vs.
Keshav Dev (supra), the Court observed that if the Trial Court is
almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or
a sheer waste of time, it would be advisable to truncate or nip the
proceedings at the stage of charge itself, however that is clearly
not the case in the present petition. In State of Rajasthan Vs.
Narayan Lal (supra), the Court dismissed the criminal revision
petition on the finding that on the basis of witness testimony, no
prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, which does
not apply to the present case at hand.
(Downloaded on 16/03/2022 at 08:44:00 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLR-1086/2014]
10. This Court, in light of the above made observations, and
taking into due consideration the multitude of judgments cited at
the Bar, finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any
legal infirmity and therefore, does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
142-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
