State Vs. Jagdamba Prasad

State vs Jagdamba Prasad

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Aug 30, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1027709

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1027709
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Aug 30, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Jagdamba Prasad

Excerpt

.....mr. mahipal bishnoi, public prosecutor, for the state by the court : this leave to appeal as per the provisions of section 378 (iii) and (i) of the cr.p.c. is preferred to have a leave to appeal the judgment dated 26.10.2012 passed by learned special judge, prevention of corruption cases, bikaner. the leave to appeal is barred by limitation from six days. having considered the facts of the case, the delay of six days is condoned, though no application as per the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act is filed. heard learned public prosecutor on merits. respondent jagdamba prasad s/o mr. jainarayan was charged for the commission of offences punishable under section 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the prevention of corruption [2] act, 1988. the prosecution to substantiate its case got examined 17 witnesses including the complainant. the complainant did not support the prosecution story. the allegation of having illegal gratification in a tune of rs.500/- too was not established as there was discrepancy with regard to recovery of currency notes from the respondent-accused. learned trial court after considering the entire evidence acquitted the accused. on consideration of the evidence as discussed in the judgment impugned, it is apparent that the complainant did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. no witness supported the prosecution story that a sum of rs.500/- was tendered to the accused-respondent as illegal gratification and he threw the same in sink. there is discrepancy also with regard to mixing of phenolphthalein coated notes, those were said to be tendered to accused- respondent. in such circumstances, i do not find any wrong with the finding arrived at the trial court. no reason, therefore, exists to grant the leave as prayed for. the leave to appeal, therefore, is dismissed. [govind mathur],j.pramod

Full Judgment

[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.17/2013 State of Rajasthan Versus Jagdamba Prasad Date of Order :

30. 08.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor, for the State BY THE COURT : This leave to appeal as per the provisions of Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. is preferred to have a leave to appeal the judgment dated 26.10.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bikaner. The leave to appeal is barred by limitation from six days. Having considered the facts of the case, the delay of six days is condoned, though no application as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. Heard learned Public Prosecutor on merits. Respondent Jagdamba Prasad S/o Mr. Jainarayan was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (D) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption [2] Act, 1988. The prosecution to substantiate its case got examined 17 witnesses including the complainant. The complainant did not support the prosecution story. The allegation of having illegal gratification in a tune of Rs.500/- too was not established as there was discrepancy with regard to recovery of currency notes from the respondent-accused. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence acquitted the accused. On consideration of the evidence as discussed in the judgment impugned, it is apparent that the complainant did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. No witness supported the prosecution story that a sum of Rs.500/- was tendered to the accused-respondent as illegal gratification and he threw the same in sink. There is discrepancy also with regard to mixing of phenolphthalein coated notes, those were said to be tendered to accused- respondent. In such circumstances, I do not find any wrong with the finding arrived at the trial court. No reason, therefore, exists to grant the leave as prayed for. The leave to appeal, therefore, is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J.

Pramod

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2013 Same Parties State vs Jagdamba Prasad Same Subject Education