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
acquittal of the petitioners on the grounds that there is no
sufficient evidence to sustain the charges against them.
The present criminal revision petitions are allowed in terms
of the observations made in the order dated 12.09.2024, passed
in identical criminal revision petitions filed by the co-accused
persons.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are hereby allowed. The
impugned 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 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Stay applications are also decided.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
16 to 19-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
