AMAR SINGH JATAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence even for the namesake on the basis of which the petitioner can be forced to face the rigor of trial as it is imperative upon the trial court to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offence are present or not or whether the same have any direct or indirect nexus with the petitioner. It is strenuously urged that neither there are allegations of making demand of illegal gratification nor there is any charge of receiving bribe. There is not even a conversation in between the complainant and the petitioner. It is vehemently and fervently urged that there is no one who will come to the witness box in the trial to substantiate the charge and as such the trial against the petitioner would be a futile exercise.

(2.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case pertaining to anti corruption, however, he, too, does not dispute that no transcript of conversation between the petitioner and the complainant is available on record and nothing incriminating has been recovered from him.

(3.) Heard and gone through the entire charge sheet, the conversation and the other material available on record.