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.

Case disposed

Session Case

CNR: RJAJ070000472017

Filing Number

24/2017

Filing Date

15-Jan-2015

Registration No

17/2017

Registration Date

15-Jan-2015

Court

DESIGNATED COURT OLD RPSC AJMER

Judge

2-Judge,Designated Court

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. Public Proceucation Officer

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajendra Prasad Jaisinghani Advocate - Umar Dan Singh Lakhawat

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge,Designated Court

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Judge,Designated Court

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Judge,Designated Court

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Judge,Designated Court

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Judge,Designated Court

  8. 23-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Judge,Designated Court

  9. 08-Dec-2025

    Final arguments

    Judge,Designated Court

  10. 26-Nov-2025

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Judge,Designated Court

  11. 28-Oct-2025

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Judge,Designated Court

  12. 03-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  13. 22-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  14. 20-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  15. 02-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  16. 17-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  17. 20-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  18. 27-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  19. 16-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  20. 22-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  21. 05-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  22. 06-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  23. 16-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  24. 15-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  25. 18-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  26. 26-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  27. 01-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  28. 03-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  29. 19-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  30. 12-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  31. 06-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  32. 04-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  33. 03-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  34. 22-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  35. 14-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  36. 29-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  37. 01-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  38. 03-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

  39. 25-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  40. 30-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  41. 27-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  42. 29-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  43. 18-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  44. 20-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  45. 16-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  46. 04-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  47. 03-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  48. 08-Oct-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  49. 13-Aug-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  50. 02-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  51. 21-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  52. 16-Apr-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  53. 26-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  54. 08-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  55. 06-Nov-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  56. 25-Sep-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  57. 14-Aug-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  58. 10-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  59. 19-Jun-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  60. 22-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  61. 24-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  62. 27-Mar-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  63. 31-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  64. 20-Dec-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  65. 08-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  66. 21-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  67. 13-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  68. 19-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  69. 24-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  70. 05-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  71. 01-Feb-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  72. 17-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  73. 14-Sep-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Judge,Designated Court

  74. 07-Jul-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  75. 04-May-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

  76. 30-Mar-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  77. 23-Feb-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  78. 29-Jan-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  79. 08-Dec-2017

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  80. 18-Nov-2017

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Judge,Designated Court

  81. 23-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  82. 15-Jan-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2017

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case