SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 16315

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
BRIJ MOHAN MANDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLR 499 2022



[2023/RJJD/016584]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 513/2022

Ishak Mohammad S/o Fakeer Khan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o

H.no. 1011, W. No. 13, Hajiba Manjil Purani Abadi, Sri

Ganganagar, Retired From The Post Of Loan Supervisor, Land

Development Bank Ltd., Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 428/2022

1

.

Nakshtra Singh S/o Shri Joga Singh, Aged About 50

Years, R/o Malkana Kallan, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District

Sri Ganganagar.

2.

Nayab Singh S/o Joga Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/

o Malkana Kallan, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri

Ganganagar.

3.

Smt. Kripal Kaur W/o Joga Singh, Aged About 70

Years, R/o Malkana Kallan, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District

Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499/2022

Brij Mohan Manda S/o Sh. Ganpat Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/

o Vill. Ghamudwali, Teh. Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)

And Presently Residing At 1-A, Ashok Nagar, Near Ravidas

Chowk, Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. I.R. Choudhary

[2023/RJJD/016584]

(2 of 4)

[CRLR-513/2022]

Mr.Abdul Kadir} in RP No.513/2022

Mr. S.K. Verma in RP No.428/20222

Mr. Himmat Jagga }

Mr. Rahul Balana} in RP No.499/2022

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. M.A. Siddiqui GA-cum-AAG

with Mr.A.R. Mlakhani

Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF ORDER

::::

19/05/2023

BY THE COURT :-

1.

All these three petitions are arising out of the order dated

03.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court,

Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar, thus they are

being heard together and decided by a common order.

2.

By way of filing all these three instant criminal revision

petitions challenge has been made to the order framing charge

dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special

Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in

Special Sessions Case No.02/2017 for the offence under Sections

13 (1) (D) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 as

well as under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC against

the accused-petitioners.

3.

It is emanating from the record that Mr. Brij Mohan Manda,

Patwari, who is one of the petitioner in this case when took charge

of the area concerned did not find mentioning or endorsement on

the Jamabandi (Land Record) and when during the process of loan

[2023/RJJD/016584]

(3 of 4)

[CRLR-513/2022]

when the application came to him, hypothetication of the land in

question was not shown. The another fact regarding mentioning

of a false document or forgery as defined under Sections 463 &

464 of the IPC are blatantly missing. The alleged criminal

misconduct has not been discussed by the learned trial Judge if it

remains the fact that at the relevant point of time when the loan

application was processed, no endorsement was mentioned in the

Jamabandi then in that situation, making a report by the current

Patwari regarding the land free from all encumbrances may not be

an act of dishonest.

4.

Be that as it may. This Court does not deem it appropriate

to make any comment/observation in this regard. This Court is

conscious of the fact that while hearing on the point of charge, the

meticulous examination of the evidence or threadbare discussion

of the material available on record is not warranted interference

but at the same time, it is felt that at least a strong prima facie

case so as to form an opinion to presume that the accused have

committed offence is required to be done so as to force the

accused to go through the rigor of the trial.

5.

In view of the above, it is felt appropriate to remand the

matter back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration of

th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top