Liyakat Ali vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2995)
2026 Latest Caselaw 628 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Liyakat Ali vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2995) on 15 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:2995]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1446/2024

Liyakat Ali S/o Hazi Abdul Gaffar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Madina Masjid, By-Pass Road, Makrana, Police Station Makrana,
Dist. Deedwana - Kuchaman (Raj.)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Mohammad      Yusuf      S/o     Farid     Mohammad,             R/o   Near
         Mohammadiya         Masjid,       Makrana,             Dist.    Deedwana-
         Kuchaman (Raj.)
3.       Irshad Ali S/o Mohammad Yusuf, R/o Near Mohammadiya
         Masjid, Makrana, Dist. Deedwana-Kuchaman (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. SP Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. NS Chandawat, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/01/2026

1. The petitioner happens to be complainant of a case. He

launched a prosecution against the private respondents for

committing offence under Section 420, 406, 323 & 504 of IPC.

After a full fledged trial and meticulous examination of the

material brought on record, learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Makrana, District Nagaur acquitted the respondents

vide judgment dated 02.06.2017 in Criminal Case No.494/2011.

The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal preferred an

appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Makrana, District

Nagaur bearing appeal No.91/2017. The appellate court undertook

a comprehensive re-appreciation of the evidence, both factual and

(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 04:20:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2995] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1446/2024]

legal, and, finding no infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court,

concurred with its conclusions and dismissed the appeal vide order

dated 07.09.2024, thereby affirming the judgment of acquittal.

The petitioner has thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of

this Court, laying challenge to both the aforesaid judgments.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through both the judgments and record of the case. Learned

counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of the

case, along with the impugned judgments, has been perused with

due care. Though the petitioner has been unable to point out any

patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting

interference, this Court has nonetheless independently examined

the evidence on record. The material, at its highest, discloses a

breach of conduct, falling short of the threshold required to attract

criminal culpability. The prosecution has notably failed to establish

that the accused harboured a dishonest intention at the very

inception of the transaction, a sine qua non for the offences

alleged.

3. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts

below and the absence of any manifest miscarriage of justice, this

Court finds no substance in the present revision petition. The

same is accordingly dismissed.

4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

5. The record be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 39-chhavi/-

(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 04:20:55 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)