SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prem Sukh vs State & Anr on 12 January, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1319 / 2016
Prem Sukh S/o Chena Ram Jat, Aged About 37 Years, Rupathal,
Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur (raj.)


1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Bhanwari W/o Prem Sukh D/o Teja Ram Jat, Aged About 34
Years, Village Roll, Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP.

Mr. B.S. Rathore.

Date of Order: 12/01/2018

By way of this revision, the accused petitioner Prem Sukh

has approached this Court for challenging the order dated

03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nagaur in Appeal No.89/2015 (37/13) (257/14) whereby, the

learned appellate court, while accepting the victim’s appeal under

Section 372 Cr.P.C., set aside the judgments of acquittal dated

26.04.2013 and 03.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Jayal in Criminal Case No.83/2011 and remanded the

matter to the trial court for fresh consideration and decision as per


Facts in brief:

(2 of 4)

After investigation of FIR No.17/2011 lodged by the

respondent Smt. Bhanwari, a charge-sheet was filed against the

petitioner in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jayal for the

offences under Sections 406, 494 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The learned Magistrate, framed charges against the

petitioner only for the offences under Sections 494, 498A and 406

IPC and manifestly, no charge was framed against him for the

offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After a full

dressed trial, the accused Prem Sukh was acquitted from the

charges under Sections 494, 498A and 406 IPC by judgment

dated 26.04.2013. The Presiding Officer holding charge of the

court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal appears to have adopted a very

strange and suspicious procedure and again took up the matter on

the application of the learned Public Prosecutor and passed

another judgment dated 03.05.2013 and acquitted the petitioner

from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The appellate court, entertained the appeal filed under

Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the respondent complainant Bhanwari and

while deciding the same by the impugned judgment, held that the

trial court acted in an absolutely cavalier and dubious manner

while conducting the case. Even the manner in which the

statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

was considered dubitable. Whilst the statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C. bears the date 18.04.2013, strangely enough, the Presiding

Officer signed the same on 22.04.2013. The matter was fixed for

final arguments on 24.04.2013 which was declared a holiday. The
(3 of 4)

Presiding Officer, allegedly heard final arguments on 26.04.2013

even though the order-sheet of that day records that the Public

Prosecutor was absent. On going through the original record of the

case it is further evident that the proceedings of 18.04.2013 have

been introduced in the order sheet through sheer interpolation.

The case had already been decided finally on 26.04.2013 but

inspite thereof, the matter was again taken up on 03.05.2013 on a

purported application filed by the Pubic Prosecutor, and on that

day, allegedly after framing a fresh charge under Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, an additional/

supplementary judgment was passed and the accused was

acquitted from the said offence. Evidently, the Presiding Officer

holding charge of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal at the

relevant time acted in a highly suspicious and dubious manner

while deciding the case. There is clearly something amiss in the

manner, the case was proceeded with. The appellate court noticed

these flaws in functioning of the trial court. The subsequent order

dated 03.05.2013 was passed purportedly after framing a fresh

charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

accused and then he was acquitted on the very same day. As the

matter had been finally decided by the Magistrate on 26.04.2013

then there was no rhyme or reason for reopening the case on

03.05.2013. Charges were framed against the accused on

02.06.2012 only for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and

494 IPC by the very same Presiding Officer. The manner in which

the Presiding Officer proceeded with the matter gives rise to a

strong suspicion that some deal was struck which was not fulfilled
(4 of 4)

after acquittal of the accused by the initial judgment dated

26.04.2013 and thus, the matter was clandestinely reopened on

03.05.2013 and a fresh judgment was passed even though the

Presiding Officer had become functus officio on 26.04.2013 itself.

Thus manifestly, the circumstances give rise to a strong indication

of corrupt practice by the concerned Presiding Officer. Evidently,

the glaring facts also disclose gross deriliction of duties by the

Presiding Officer. Consequently, the Registry is directed to report

the matter to Hon’ble The Chief Justice for follow up action while

placing the copies of this order and the relevant documents for his


This Court is of the further opinion that even the Additional

Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the case in the court of the

Judicial Magistrate, appears to be hands in glove with the

Presiding Officer and as such, his conduct should also be inquired


A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Law

Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for inquiring into the conduct

of the Additional Public Prosecutor concerned.

In view of the discussion made herein above, I find no

infirmity or illegality being reflected in the impugned order dated

03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nagaur and hence, the instant revision is dismissed as being

devoid of merit with the above directions.


Tikam Daiya/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation