Rajasthan High Court
CRLR/1360/2007 of RUPESH JAIN Vs STATE on 20 December 2007
Petition No.1360/2007 Rupesh Jain v. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 20th December, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. .... By order impugned dated 9.10.2007 the petitioner is charged for an offence punishable under
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Rupesh Jainv.
State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 20[th] December, 2007
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner.Mr. V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor.
....
By order impugned dated 9.10.2007 thepetitioner is charged for an offence punishable underSection 420 IPC. While assailing validity of the samethe contention of counsel for the petitioner is thaton basis of evidence available no case punishableunder Section 420 IPC can be made out against thepetitioner. It is asserted that the amount ofconsideration for sale of plot in question wasreceived by Vinish Jain and not the petitioner andalso that the registry of the plot in question doesnot bear either signature or thumb impression of thepetitioner. Whatever amount received by the petitionerthat was at the behest of Vinish Jain and, therefore,the present petitioner cannot be held liable to facetrial for an offence under Section 420 IPC.
I have perused the order impugned and alsothe other relevant record submitted by counsel for thepetitioner.
From perusal of the complaint as well as thestatements given by Shri Sardarmal son of Roopram I amsatisfied that adequate evidence to form a prima facieopinion to draw presumption for proceeding with trialagainst the petitioner by framing a charge underSection 420 IPC is available. No interference with theorder impugned, therefore, is warranted.
Accordingly, the revision petition isdismissed.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
Kkm/ps.