Petitioner-State challenged discharge order of respondent in corruption case. Single Judge upheld discharge, holding recovery from open plot and father's alleged involvement insufficient to incriminate respondent. Dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 2021/2016.
State of Rajasthan Through PP
Versus
Jitendra Meena S/o Laxman Meena, Caste Meena, R/o Toda Jaisinghpura P.S. Tahla, District Alwar.
For State-Petitioner : Shri R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
14/12/2017
State has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 29.4.2016, whereby respondent was ordered to be discharged by the trial court.
I have learned the learned State Counsel and have gone through record available on file carefully.
In the present case, Laxman Ram Meena, father of the respondent was working as a Patwari. As per the case of the complainant, Laxman Ram Meena had demanded bribe from him for providing passage to him. In a trap organised by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Laxman Ram Meena could not be apprehended at the spot as he had managed to escape. It is the prosecution story that the bribe money was recovered from the respondent. Respondent Jeetendra Meena is the son of accused Laxman Ram Meena (since deceased).
Learned trial court, while ordering the discharge of the respondent, rightly held that the respondent had never
demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant. Merely because the father of the respondent had allegedly handed over the amount in question to the respondent would not lead to the inference that the respondent was also involved in the alleged crime. In-fact, the money in question was also not recovered directly from the respondent but had been allegedly recovered from an open plot on a disclosure statement suffered by the respondent.
The reasons given by the trial court, while ordering the discharge of the respondent are sound reasons and call for no interference by this court.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mrg./39
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court was justified in upholding the trial court's order of discharge of the respondent.
Whether mere recovery of alleged bribe money from a connected relative leads to inference of commission of offence by the respondent.
State of Rajasthan
Jitendra Meena
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
