Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jyoti Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29103) on 7 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:29103]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 629/2025
Jyoti Prasad S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Purohit, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Chhanganiyo Ki Gali, Ward No 5, Pokran District
Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent
                              Connected With
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 857/2021
1.   Bilal Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rahim, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
     K.k. Vaas, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
2.   Mohammed Umar S/o Shri Abdul Rahim, Aged About 43
     Years, R/o K.k. Vaas, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
3.   Jasraj S/o Shri Doongardas, Aged About 58 Years, B/c
     Suthar, R/o Jaisalmer Road, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1335/2024
1.   Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Nakhat Mal, Aged About 82 Years,
     R/o Bhutro Ki Gali Pokran Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
2.   Shanti Lal S/o Shri Mahadev Vyas, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
     Mangalpura Pokran Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
3.   Satyanarayan Ghandhi S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 73
     Years, R/o Ghandhiyo Ki Gali, Pokran Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
4.   Mohan Lal Ghandhi S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 63
     Years, R/o Ghandhiyo Ki Gali, Pokran Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 630/2025
Ashok Kumar Khatri S/o Shri Tikamchand Khatri, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Ako Ki Pol Ward No.18, Pokaran Dist. Jaisalmer
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp                                   ----Respondent




                     (Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:29103]                    (2 of 5)                    [CRLR-629/2025]



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
                                 Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Pandey
                                 Mr. Devi Singh Bhati
                                 Mr. Vikram Singh for
                                 Mr. Tarun Joshi
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
                                 with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
                          Order

07/07/2025

      The present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the

petitioners against the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the

learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No.1, Jodhpur

in Criminal Case No.01/2015, whereby the learned trial Judge has

framed charges against them for offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467 & 120-B of IPC.

2.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revision

petitions filed by the similar situated co-accused persons namely

Tara Ram, Ghewar Ram, Himmata Ram and Kalu Ram have

already been discharged by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 12.09.2024. The case of the present petitioners

is not distinguishable from those of the aforementioned co-

accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that the present criminal

revision petitions filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed

and the order of the trial Judge framing charge against the

petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside.

3.    Learned AAG opposed the prayer made by counsel for the

petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the present criminal

revision petitions.




                      (Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:29103]                        (3 of 5)                      [CRLR-629/2025]



4.    I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned AAG and perused the material available on record

along with the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this

Court. In respect of Revision Petition No. 731/2021, 739/2021,

741/2021, 751/2021, it has been observed that:-

         "10. No doubt law is trite that at the stage of charge
          the prosecution material is to be looked into as it
          is. Nothing is to be added nor subtracted nor the
          defence version can be looked into. If on a bare
          perusal of prosecution material the charge appears
          to be groundless the accused would be discharged,
          otherwise the trial would proceed. There is nothing
          on record that on the date of application the
          petitioner had submitted any wrong information.
          Moreover, as soon as the petitioner and his family
          members got engaged in business after years of
          making of the application, the petitioner acted with
          fairness and did not took possession over the
          allotted land not pursued the matter anymore after
          filing     of   the     application.        The     Enquiry   Report
          submitted by the public servants is not signed by
          the petitioner, therefore, it is evident that the
          petitioner was not a party to any report. The
          petitioner was allotted Chak No.1 JDM, Murabba
          No.139/12 under the Scheme but the petitioner
          never took possession of the same, which would be
          evident from the revenue record (Girdawari). When
          the petitioner declined, the said Chak/Murabba was
          allotted to one Nakhat Singh S/o Anoop Singh.



          11. On a bare perusal of the prosecution material it
          is evident that the petitioner never made any false
          statement in the application filed in the year 1990


                          (Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:29103]                      (4 of 5)                       [CRLR-629/2025]


          as there is no evidence that in the year 1990 the
          petitioner     had      a     flourishing        business.       Since
          petitioner was wholly engaged in the business, he
          did not took any interest in allotment and non-
          allotment of the same, rather he never took
          possession of allotted land and the same in turn
          was allotted to some other person, therefore,
          criminal prosecution of the petitioner-Kalu Ram is
          groundless, hence the impugned order to the
          extent of petitioner-Kalu Ram stands hereby set
          aside and Kalu Ram is discharged of the charges
          levelled as well as the case concerned.

          ................

22. One more thing is evident that during whole of the investigation, it did not surface that in fact the petitioners had acted in discharge of their official duty for extraneous consideration. The prosecution has failed to bring any evidence that Rs.2,000/-, as alleged was paid to any of the accused by the beneficiary. Only surmises and conjectures are available which makes the charge groundless coupled with other facts and circumstances of this case. Unless demand and acceptance of bribe is prima facie alleged, offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act aforesaid would not be attracted, therefore, charge against these petitioners also appears to be groundless and discriminative to that of other co-accused referred above, who were either not granted sanction by State or were discharged by the trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order against these petitioners also stand set aside. They are discharged from their criminal liability."

[2025:RJ-JD:29103] (5 of 5) [CRLR-629/2025]

In the opinion of this Court the present case is not

distinguishable from those of the aforementioned co-accused, and

the circumstances and evidence are substantially similar. Given

this similarity, the foundational basis for framing charges against

the petitioners is equally weak and unsubstantiated. The material

on record does not establish prima facie evidence to justify

proceeding with the trial, and continuing with the proceedings

would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the

interest of justice and in adherence to the principles of consistency

and fairness, the order of the trial Judge framing charges against

the petitioners ought to be quashed and set aside, resulting in the