DILIP SAXENA S/O LATE SH. HARI SAXENA v. UNION OF INDIA
CRLMP/4705/2023 · 2025-08-22
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24679 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24679 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:33333] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4705/2023 Dilip Saxena S/o Late Sh. Hari Saxena, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 601, Dadabari Extension Scheme, Opp. Modi College, Kota (Raj). Presently Residing At A-1302, Mahima Nirvana, Reality, Mahapura, Japur-302026 (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, through P.P. CBI ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary, Spl.
PP (CBI) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/08/2025
1. Petitioner is a co-accused in a Sessions case No. 20/2018 (18/16) titled as State through CBI Vs. Dilip Saxena and ors. for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC. During course of prosecution evidence, one of the prosecution witnesses exhibited electronic device Ex. P28 to proof the conversation, allegedly entered into between the complainant Anil Kumar Choudhary and the co-accuseds viz Dilip Saxena and Rajib Pal.
2. After exhibiting such electronic evidence and closure of prosecution evidence, at the stage of defence evidence, accused petitioner moved an application seeking to de-exhibit the electronic evidence on the ground that same is not supported with the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
[2025:RJ-JP:33333] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4705/2023] This application has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2022.
3. Having argued the petition for some time, counsel for the petitioner having instructions, from petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise such an issue at the appellate stage, if petitioner is convicted for such offence and appeal is filed by him thereagainst.
4. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner as prayed for.
5. Interim order if any stands vacated.
6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/242