Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2253 (RAJ)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant revision, which is delayed by 5 days, is directed against the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 96/2013 arising out of FIR No. 274/2004 registered at Police Station CPS ASC, Jaipur Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh whereby, charges were framed against the present petitioner and few others for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC and Section 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that Revision No. 1050/2017, Deshraj and Another vs. State, preferred by two co-accused persons against the very same order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, which is under challenge in this revision, has been accepted by this Court. The impugned order was quashed and set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the learned court below for fresh consideration. 3. In this view of the matter, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner too deserves to be allowed. Hence, delay occasioned in filing the revision by the petitioner is suo-motu condoned. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute that the case of the present petitioner is, in no manner, distinguishable from that of the co-accused Deshraj and Subhash Chandra whose revision stands allowed by this Court. 4. In this view of the matter, the instant revision is also accepted in the very same terms. The operative portion of the order dated 11.08.2017 is reproduced here-in-below for the sake of ready reference:- “5. Considering the contention of the parties as also the fact that in the charge order name of Laxman Ram Bhakar has wrongly been inserted in place of the present petitioners, also taking note of the fact that the main accused, who are Government employees, have not been prosecuted due to lack of sanction order the Court is required to consider as to whether the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC can be framed in absence of the main accused.” 5. The revision is allowed accordingly. The revision is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 04.05.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh reasoned order as per law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.