The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has allowed a criminal revision petition and restored the order of discharge passed by the trial Court in a case involving alleged tampering of seals of seed godowns and theft of seized seeds. In a detailed and reportable judgment delivered on 06 April 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 454/2018 (Anuj Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan), the Court held that the revisional Court had transgressed the limits of its supervisory jurisdiction by reversing the well-reasoned discharge order without pointing out any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial Court.
The petitioners, Anuj Kumar and Neeraj Kumar, were discharged by the learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar, vide order dated 18.03.2015 in Criminal Original Case No. 709/2013. The State preferred a revision which was allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur on 24.03.2018, setting aside the discharge and directing that the petitioners be proceeded against for offences under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 201 IPC with issuance of warrants of arrest. This order was challenged before the High Court.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that the controversy is squarely governed by the principles laid down in Reema v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 581/2025, decided on 22.01.2026). Quoting extensively from the said decision and an earlier analogous matter, the Court held:
“A careful reading of the aforesaid extracted portion unmistakably reveals that the Court, even at the stage of framing of charge, is under a legal obligation to undertake a meaningful, albeit limited, scrutiny of the material on record and to ensure that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie disclosed. The exercise cannot be reduced to a mechanical endorsement of the charge-sheet.”
The High Court further clarified the doctrinal distinction between “mere suspicion” and “grave suspicion” which forms the jurisprudential fulcrum at the stage of framing of charge:
“Mere suspicion, regardless of its intensity, remains inherently speculative. It is characterized by absence of foundational facts, lack of evidentiary linkage, and dependence upon surmises… Grave suspicion, in contradistinction, is rooted in tangible material… The distinction, therefore, is not merely lexical but substantive: while mere suspicion is conjectural and infirm, grave suspicion is grounded in material particulars and carries legal weight sufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.”
Applying these principles, the Court found that the impugned revisional order suffered from manifest infirmities. It noted that the revisional Court failed to indicate any perversity or illegality in the trial Court’s discharge order and its reasoning was “cursory, omnibus, and bereft of any demonstrable application of judicial mind.” Such an approach, the Court held, militates against the settled principles governing revisional jurisdiction, which is supervisory and not appellate in nature.
The High Court emphasised that the direction to proceed against the petitioners with coercive process entailed serious consequences affecting their liberty and reputation and therefore necessitated a higher degree of judicial scrutiny. However, it refrained from entering into the merits of the evidence or recording any conclusive finding on culpability, leaving the matter entirely open for the trial Court.
Consequently, the revision petition was allowed. The order dated 24.03.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Revision No. 27/2015 was set aside and the order of discharge dated 18.03.2015 passed by the ACJM, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Original Case No. 709/2013 was affirmed.
Case Title: Anuj Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
Mr. Pankaj Gupta appeared for the petitioners while Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A. represented the State.
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 