[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jagdish Kataria (2026:Rj-Jd:14692) on 30 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14692]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 326/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jagdish Kataria S/o Ganeshmal, Sojati Gate Ke Andar
Bilara District Jodhpur Tatkaalin Assistant Engineer Jdvvnl
Kalandri District Sirohi
2. Jitendar Kumar S/o Magnaram, Gram Rampura (Nkv)
Police Station Sirohi District Sirohi Haal Technical
Assistant Office Assistant Engineer (O And M)
(Suspended)Jdvvnl Kalandari District Sirohi
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
30/03/2026
1. There is a delay of 68 days in filing the present application
seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated
27.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention
of Corruption Act Cases, Pali, in Regular Case No. 46/2015
(15/2011), whereby the accused-respondents, namely
Jagdish Kataria and others, have been acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by
extending them the benefit of doubt.
2. The matter comes up for consideration on an application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14692] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-326/2025]
condonation of delay in filing the present leave to appeal as
well as the appeal.
3. The application has been perused and the explanation
furnished therein has been duly considered. It is revealed
that after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment on
27.06.2025, an application for obtaining the certified copy
was moved on 30.06.2025, which came to be prepared and
delivered on 29.07.2025. Thereafter, the Assistant Director
(Prosecution), Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Pali, upon
receipt of the certified copy, forwarded the case record along
with legal opinion to the Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur for necessary action.
4. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, after examining the entire material available on
record, forwarded the case along with legal opinion to the
Law Department, Jaipur, vide communication dated
24.09.2025. The matter was thereafter considered at various
levels in the Law Department, Jaipur, and upon due
deliberation and examination of all relevant aspects, a
decision was taken to challenge the impugned judgment
before this Court.
5. Pursuant thereto, sanction/approval was accorded by the
Law and Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur, on 03.11.2025,
which was received in the office of the Government
Advocate, Jodhpur, on 27.11.2025. The matter was then
entrusted to the Public Prosecutor for preparation of the
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14692] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-326/2025]
appeal. A communication dated 28.11.2025 was issued to
the Assistant Director (Prosecution), Pali, to coordinate and
provide necessary records for filing an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In compliance thereof, the
Assistant Director (Prosecution), Pali, contacted the
Government Advocate on 02.12.2025 and supplied the
requisite documents.
6. Thereafter, upon examination of the entire record and the
impugned judgment, the Public Prosecutor prepared the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with
the leave to appeal on 02.12.2025, which was duly typed
and filed through e-filing on the same day.
7. Having regard to the sequence of events and the explanation
furnished, this Court finds that the delay has occurred due to
bona fide administrative and procedural requirements
involving movement of the file through various departments.
It is well settled that in matters where the State is the
applicant, a certain amount of latitude is permissible, as the
decision-making process necessarily involves multiple
officers and procedural formalities.
8. This Court is satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor
deliberate, but has occurred due to the procedural time
consumed in obtaining approvals and processing the matter
at different administrative levels. In order to advance
substantial justice, a liberal approach is warranted in such
cases.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14692] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-326/2025]
9. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present leave to appeal as
well as the appeal is condoned. The application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed.
10.Upon a prima facie consideration of the impugned judgment
of acquittal, this Court is of the opinion that arguable issues
arise for consideration in appellate jurisdiction, particularly in
relation to appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded
by the learned trial court in respect of the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
11. Consequently, sufficient grounds exist to grant leave to the
State to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the
accused-respondents.
12. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly,
allowed.
13. The memo of leave to appeal be registered as a criminal
appeal.
14. Office to proceed accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
2-divya/-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:48:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
