[2025:RJ-JD:34196]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 796/2004 Vijay Kumar S/o Kalu Ram R/o Mohlla Borawad Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur. ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Mushtak Ahmad S/o Jalluddin R/o Station Road Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur at present And Anr ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Joshi Mr. O.P Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore,Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/07/2025

1. By way of filing this instant petition under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 5/03, whereby the respondent No.2 has 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.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, a resident of Village Borawad, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur, was working as a Seniority Inspector in the Municipal Board, Parbatsar since 1997. He had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court against the advertisement for the said post, wherein a stay order was granted in his favour. It is alleged that despite this, in March 1999, respondent No.2, the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, passed an order terminating the petitioner’s services. When confronted, the respondent allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹1,000/- for revoking the termination order. Pursuant to this complaint, a trap was organized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. On 19.08.1999, in the presence of independent witnesses, a trap party was constituted and phenolphthalein-treated currency notes were handed over to the petitioner. The trap was successfully executed at the office of the Municipal Board, Parbatsar, where respondent No.2 was allegedly caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The tainted money was recovered, hand-wash tests were conducted, and the necessary recovery and procedural memos were drawn at the spot.

Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, and respondent No.2 was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur acquitted respondent No.2 by judgment dated 31.08.2004.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

4. The foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and benefit of every material doubt must go to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has built its case primarily on the complaint lodged by the petitioner Vijay Kumar (P.W.8), and the trap proceedings carried out with the assistance of police constable Shobh Singh (P.W.10), IO Om Prakash Joshi (P.W.9), and other witnesses such as Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.11). However, a close scrutiny of their testimonies reveals critical inconsistencies and material contradictions which the learned trial court has rightly taken into account in arriving at its conclusion of acquittal.

5. One of the significant infirmities that taint the prosecution’s case is the questionable role of Constable Shobh Singh (P.W.10). The trial court, after extensive analysis, has recorded a well-reasoned finding that Shobh Singh, although posted at ACB Chowki Ajmer, belonged to the same village (Dhandholi, PS Gachhipura, District Nagaur) where the petitioner’s mother resides, thereby raising a serious apprehension of collusion and lack of objectivity. The trial court has also cogently observed that despite not