JUDGMENT :

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. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 944/2015:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and by a suitable order or direction Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.5.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Case) Udaipur in criminal case no. 9/2009 (special sessions case) so as to discharge the petitioner.

Grant such further relief(s) which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and award cost of this revision petition to the petitioner.”

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 945/2015:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and by a suitable order or direction Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.5.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) Udaipur in criminal case no. 9/2009 (special sessions case) so as to discharge the petitioners.

Grant such further relief(s) which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioners; and award cot of this revision petition to the petitioners.”

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 946/2015:

“It is therefore respectfully prayed that this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.5.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) Udaipur in criminal case no.9/2009 (special sessions case) so as to discharge the petitioner.”

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1075/2015:

“Hence it is prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 11.06.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside and also accused-petitioners discharged from all the offences.”

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts, in brief, are being taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 946/2015, while treating the same as the lead case.

4. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja; Mr.L.D. Khatri and Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-petitioners are that an F.I.R., bearing No. 203/2001 was registered against the revisionist -petitioners, for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) / 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 477A and 120-B I.P.C., and the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention Of Corruption Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 9/2009 passed the impugned order dated 28.5.2015 framing charges under the above mentioned sections against the revisionist-petitioners.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the aforementioned F.I.R. was registered alleging that a quarry license was issued by the Mining Department in favour of one Nirmal Kumar Jain for the Araji Nos. 168 to 176, 182 and 183 of Gram Aaroli and Araji Nos. 568 and 569 of Village Jadoli, and that the land was allegedly irrigated land, but in connivance with one Shankarlal (Patwari), the same was shown as non-irrigated / ‘barrani’ land, and issuance of the alleged quarry license therefor was managed. It was also alleged that as per the Rules governing the quarry license, a license for irrigated land could not be issued.

5.1 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the State Government refused sanction to prosecute the then Mining Engineer, Fateh Karan Mehdu, and therefore, charge sheet against him was not filed.

5.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Government of Rajasthan, on 01.04.1991, had issued a policy for issuance of quarry licenses/mining lease in agricultur