Ravi Dubey Vs. State

Ravi Dubey vs State

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 30, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/498622

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/498622
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.S. Azad, J.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2001
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 981/2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

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

- - 700/- and the amount which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of trap is well explained.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1) and (2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravi Dubey

Advocate Prashant Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Chanchal Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1) and (2)
Reported In: 2002(1)MPHT222

Excerpt

- - 700/- and the amount which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of trap is well explained......to this revision.3. shri prashant singh has drawn my special attention to paragraph 9 of the order passed by special judge (lokayukta), jabalpur wherein it is opined by the learned special judge that even if something is accepted without any demand been made for doing some official work, the transaction would fall in the category of bribe. according to shri singh there is no iota of evidence on the fact that the petitioner ever made a demand of rs. 700/- and the amount which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of trap is well explained. it is also submitted by shri singh that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained his being in possession of the aforesaid amount, by filing documents marked as document nos. 7 to 10, alongwith this petition.4. it is not in dispute that the complainant moved the lokayukta making an allegation that the petitioner is demanding bribe for issuance of licences for plying cycle-rickshaws. it is also not in dispute that under supervision of officials of the unit of the special police establishment, a trap was laid and currency notes amounting to rs. 700/- were seized from the possession of the petitioner, on which the phenophthalein test was found positive. so far as the documents marked as document nos. 7 to 10 are concerned, all these documents are to be considered at the time of trial. the learned special judge is found to have committed no impropriety in forming an opinion that on the receipt of something for doing some official work, even without there being any demand, the transaction falls in the category of bribe and hence no illegality or impropriety is found committed in framing the charge by special judge. thus, i do not find any substance in this revision. it is accordingly disallowed and rejected.5. criminal revision dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.S. Azad, J.

1. Arguments heard.

2. By order dated 12-7-2001 the Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpurframed a charge against this petitioner for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 giving rise to this revision.

3. Shri Prashant Singh has drawn my special attention to Paragraph 9 of the order passed by Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur wherein it is opined by the learned Special Judge that even if something is accepted without any demand been made for doing some official work, the transaction would fall in the category of bribe. According to Shri Singh there is no iota of evidence on the fact that the petitioner ever made a demand of Rs. 700/- and the amount which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of trap is well explained. It is also submitted by Shri Singh that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained his being in possession of the aforesaid amount, by filing documents marked as Document Nos. 7 to 10, alongwith this petition.

4. It is not in dispute that the complainant moved the Lokayukta making an allegation that the petitioner is demanding bribe for issuance of licences for plying cycle-rickshaws. It is also not in dispute that under supervision of officials of the unit of the Special Police Establishment, a trap was laid and currency notes amounting to Rs. 700/- were seized from the possession of the petitioner, on which the Phenophthalein test was found positive. So far as the documents marked as Document Nos. 7 to 10 are concerned, all these documents are to be considered at the time of trial. The learned Special Judge is found to have committed no impropriety in forming an opinion that on the receipt of something for doing some official work, even without there being any demand, the transaction falls in the category of bribe and hence no illegality or impropriety is found committed in framing the charge by Special Judge. Thus, I do not find any substance in this revision. It is accordingly disallowed and rejected.

5. Criminal Revision dismissed.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2001 Same Parties Ravi Dubey vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.S. Azad, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228; Prev...

Criminal