Dismissed

Anwaar Anwar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2017CRLR/863/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's order altering the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to align with the complaint, finding no perversity in the lower court's decision to ensure the charge disclosed the facts of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was permitted; stay application disposed of.

Anwaar Anwar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 863 / 2016

¶3

Anwaar (Anwar) son of Shri Abdul Sattar aged about 59 years R/o near Neelgaron ki Masjid, Malpura District Tonk

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Soni

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

01/09/2017

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 03.05.2016 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Ajmer whereby the Court has allowed the application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and has altered the contents of charge.

¶14

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially charged on 7.3.2011 and has been facing trial since then. The trial was at the final stage when an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Court below. It is contended that the petitioner would be put to serious injustice as he would have to face the trial denovo.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that only the allegations pertaining to the charge have been altered by the Court and the same has been altered in

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLR-863/2016]

¶18

in accordance with the contents of the complaint and facts of the

¶19

case. It is contended that in the initial charge it was mentioned that the petitioner has demanded money for making the certificate whereas actually the certificate was issued by the Tehsildar and was kept by the petitioner and money was demanded for giving the certificate issued by the Tehsildar.

¶20

4. I have considered the contentions.

¶21

From the perusal of the complaint it is evident that the allegations in the complaint was that the petitioner took the certificate from the Tehsildar and demanded Rs.15,000/- for delivering the certificate. The Court has not committed any perversity in passing the impugned order as the contents of the charge should disclose the facts which lead to the commission of the offence.

¶22

There being no perversity in the impugned order.

¶23

The revision petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶24

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶25

teekam/30

Anwaar Anwar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwaar Anwar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman @ Bachcha @ Aman Ali Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Gordhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramswaroop Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramraj Mali Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chouthi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ajay Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp