Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State vs Meghshyam Singh And Smt Ramrat on 9 November, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR. REVISION PETITION NO. 748/2003.
The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Versus
1. Meghshyam Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh, by caste
Jat, aged 57 years, R/o Village Sahai, P.S. Achhanera
District Agra (U.P.), the then Patwari, Patwari Halka
Jaghina Tehsil & District Bharatpur.
2. Smt. Ramrati W/o Shri Mangilal, by caste Jat, aged
55 Years, R/o B-9, Sanjay Nagar, Bharatpur.
For Petitioner-State : Shri R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Shri G.S. Shekhawat
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order 9/11/2017 State has filed this petition challenging the order dated 4.4.2003, whereby respondent No.2 was discharged and respondent No.1 was discharged qua offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code 1860.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that the trial court while discharging respondent No.2 has taken into consideration only the statement of husband of respondent No.2. However, the other documents on record i.e. her nomination in Insurance Policy of respondent No.1 etc. have not been considered. In-fact, the respondents were having illicit relations and petitioner No.1 had purchased property in the name of respondent No.2 out of unfair means.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and has submitted that respondent No.2 was having separate ration-card and was married to Mangilal. Statement of Mangilal had been recorded during investigation, who had stated that the property in the name of his wife had been purchased by him.
As per the prosecution story, respondent No.1 was working as a Patwari and had assets beyond the known sources of his income. It is the prosecution case that respondent No.1 had purchased the property in the name of respondent No.2 by unfair means as he was having illicit relations with her. Trial court while ordering the discharge of respondent No.2 and discharge of respondent No.1 under Section 120-B IPC has taken into consideration only the statement of the husband of respondent No.2, However, the other documents collected during investigation have not been considered by the trial court. In one of the Insurance Policy taken by respondent No.2 respondent No.1 is the nominee and the address of respondent No.2 has also been given as c/o respondent No.1.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order dated 4.4.2003 and direct the trial to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the entire material available on record.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.4.2003 is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
(SABINA)J. Mrg./19