State vs Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani Advocate - Umar Dan Singh Lakhawat — 17/2017
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJAJ070000472017
Filing Number
24/2017
Filing Date
15-01-2015
Registration No
17/2017
Registration Date
15-01-2015
Court
DESIGNATED COURT OLD RPSC AJMER
Judge
2-Judge,Designated Court
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. Public Proceucation Officer
Respondent(s)
Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani Advocate - Umar Dan Singh Lakhawat
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judge,Designated Court
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 06-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani Court Decision (23.03.2026): The Designated Sessions Court acquitted Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani, a Deputy Manager at Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited, of charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and received ₹36,000 in bribes from the complainant between April 2012-January 2013. Key evidentiary gaps included: the main prosecution witness being declared hostile, lack of corroborating scientific evidence for voice recordings, inconsistencies regarding when the alleged bribe verification occurred (whether 6 or 7 January 2013), and absence of documentary proof that the complainant possessed liquor shops to have legitimate grievances requiring the accused's official intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani Court Decision (23.03.2026): The Designated Sessions Court acquitted Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani, a Deputy Manager at Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited, of charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and received ₹36,000 in bribes from the complainant between April 2012-January 2013. Key evidentiary gaps included: the main prosecution witness being declared hostile, lack of corroborating scientific evidence for voice recordings, inconsistencies regarding when the alleged bribe verification occurred (whether 6 or 7 January 2013), and absence of documentary proof that the complainant possessed liquor shops to have legitimate grievances requiring the accused's official intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts