Dismissed

Upendra Dave v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CRLR/643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan heard multiple criminal revision petitions challenging orders framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the framing of charges was lawful and not open to interference as no illegality was pointed out.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petitions were dismissed and the orders framing charges dated 16.03.2019 were affirmed.

Upendra Dave Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013872]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 693/2019

¶4

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh. Chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao, R/o Bheenmal, Dist. Jalore (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 643/2019

¶11

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 644/2019

¶17

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 645/2019

¶23

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 646/2019

¶29

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years,

(2 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 647/2019

¶39

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶43

----Respondent

¶44

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 648/2019

¶45

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶46

----Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶49

----Respondent

¶50

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 649/2019

¶51

Upendra Dave S/o Late Sh. Ramkishan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Karni Bhawan Hotel, Defence Lab Road, Jodhpur.

¶52

----Petitioner

¶53

Versus

¶54

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶55

----Respondent

¶56

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 658/2019

¶57

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh. Chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao , R/o Bheenmal , Distt. Jalore (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

(3 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶64

----Respondent

¶65

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 702/2019

¶66

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh. Chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao, R/o Bheenmal, District Jalore (Raj.)

¶67

----Petitioner

¶68

Versus

¶69

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶70

----Respondent

¶71

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 703/2019

¶72

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh. Chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao, R/o Bheenmal, District Jalore (Raj.)

¶73

----Petitioner

¶74

Versus

¶75

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶76

----Respondent

¶77

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 704/2019

¶78

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh.chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao , R/o Bheenmal , Distt. Jalore (Raj.)

¶79

----Petitioner

¶80

Versus

¶81

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶82

----Respondent

¶83

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 705/2019

¶84

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh. Chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao, R/o Bheenmal, District Jalore (Raj.)

¶85

----Petitioner

¶86

Versus

¶87

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶88

----Respondent

¶89

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 706/2019

¶90

Bagh Singh Rao S/o Sh.chhog Singh Rao, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Rao , R/o Bheenmal , Distt. Jalore (Raj.)

----Petitioner

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

(4 of 8)

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶97

----Respondent

¶98

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 967/2019

¶99

P.n. Mathur S/o Shri Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mathur, Resident Of Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶100

----Petitioner

¶101

Versus

¶102

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶103

----Respondent

¶104

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 968/2019

¶105

P.n. Mathur S/o Shri Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mathur, Resident Of Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶106

----Petitioner

¶107

Versus

¶108

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶109

----Respondent

¶110

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 982/2019

¶111

P.N. Mathur S/o Sh. Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, B/c Mathur, R/o Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶112

----Petitioner

¶113

Versus

¶114

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶115

----Respondent

¶116

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 984/2019

¶117

P.N. Mathur S/o Sh. Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, B/c Mathur, R/o Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶118

----Petitioner

¶119

Versus

¶120

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶121

----Respondent

¶122

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 996/2019

¶123

P.N.Mathur S/o Shri Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mathur, Resident Of Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶124

(5 of 8) [CRLR-693/2019]

[2023/RJJD/013872]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶129

----Respondent

¶130

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 998/2019

¶131

P.N. Mathur S/o Shri Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mathur, Resident Of Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶132

----Petitioner

¶133

Versus

¶134

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶135

----Respondent

¶136

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 999/2019

¶137

P.N. Mathur S/o Shri Prem Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mathur, Resident Of Mahapura, Jaipur.

¶138

----Petitioner

¶139

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Responden
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary & Ms. Hemlata Choudhary Mr. Mahesh Thanvi for Mr. Niranjan Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Jajra,PP

¶140

----Respondent

¶141

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶142

	Order
ORDER RESERVED ON	:::	05/05/2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON	:::	09/05/2023
BY THE COURT:-

¶143

All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners Shri Bagh Singh, the then Additional Collector (Land Conversion), Shri Upendra Dave, Advocate and Shri P.N. Mathur, the then Tehsildar challenging orders dated 16.03.2019 passed by the learned

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

(6 of 8)

Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Cases Nos.3/2014, 4/2014, 5/2014, 6/2014, 7/2014, 08/2014 and 9/2014 dated 16.03.2019, involve a common questions and issues thus, all these revision petitions are, therefore, heard and decided concomitantly by this common order with the consent of the parties.

¶148

By way of filing these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the legality and correctness of orders dated 16.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges under the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that for regularisation of the certain piece of land on account of wrong possession proceedings were undertaken. Accused-Bagh Singh and P.N. Mathur are public servant and the accused Upendra Dave is a lawyer. It is alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched in between the accused persons for usurping certain government land by making false report and without verification of site and without inquiry into the fact as well as without getting no objection certificate from UIT ‘Pattas’ were issued in favour of the beneficiaries, as a necessary consequence of which accused persons got benefit and at the same time caused loss to the public exchequer. It was all done by misusing their official position and under a colourable exercise of power which amounts to a criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶149

A perusal of the record revealing that no endorsement, comment or data is mentioned over the suo moto report. The requisite report regarding land conversion was not not available on

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

(7 of 8)

record. The decision was required to be taken after conducting the inquiry and verification for the same by the Sub-Divisional Officer. There are statements of certain prosecution witnesses that neither the cases were instituted within three months of the suo moto note, nor any decision was taken. The prosecution witness Bajrang Lal states that the presence of accused P.N. Mathur, Tehsildar was shown on 11.10.1989 and on the contrary, he stated that accused-P.N. Mathur was relieved on 13.09.1989. The files do no contain the fact of issuance of notice or service upon the parties. As a matter of fact, on physical verification of the property in question, the possession over the property for which the regularisation was sought by the accused persons on the count that they are in possession, were not found in possession of them. There are serious allegations of fabricating anti-dated documents. 5. A careful scanning of the material available on record prima facie indicates commission of corruption. There is ample material available on record from which it can be held that accused persons conspired together to usurp government property thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the State. There are also allegations regarding fabrication of false documents and forgery as well as using false documents as genuine. The submission that the allotment/regularisation have been cancelled subsequently do not melt down the wrong act committed at a relevant point of time. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to presume that the accused-petitioners have committed alleged offence and for which they should be put to trial. Even otherwise, the trial commenced in the year 2019 and now, much water has been flown as the trial has proceeded to a far extent.

[2023/RJJD/013872]

[CRLR-693/2019]

(8 of 8)

Thus, viewing from any angle, there appears no reasonable grounds to interfere in the orders framing charges dated 16.03.2019 as the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the orders framing charge passed by the learned trial Court.

¶158

There is no merit in these criminal revision petitions, thus deserve dismissal and accordingly the same are dismissed. The orders framing charge dated 16.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases Jodhpur in Criminal Cases Nos. 3/2014, 4/2014, 5/2014, 6/2014, 7/2014, 08/2014 and 9/2014 dated 16.03.2019 are affirmed.

¶159

The stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶160

A copy of this order shall be placed in each file.

¶161

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶162

11-Mamta/-

Upendra Dave v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Dave v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ravindrakumar Sharma Vs Gautam Bohra

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaypal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan