IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 774/2009 (Smt. Madhuri Bubna Versus The State of Rajathan & Another) Date of Order :: 6th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sandeep Mehta, counsel for the petitioner Shri O.P. Singhaniya, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan Shri Vinay Kothari, Counsel for the respondent no.2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri O.P. Singhaniya, Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent no.1 and Shri Vinay Kothari, appears for the counsel for the respondent no.2, therefore, notice need not be issued. Record of both the courts below may be summoned immediately. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.Criminal Misc.Stay Application No.1500/2009 In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 774/2009 (Smt. Madhuri Bubna Versus The State of Rajathan & Another) Date of Order :: 6th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sandeep Mehta, counsel for the petitioner Shri O.P. Singhaniya, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan Shri Vinay Kothari, Counsel for the respondent no.2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since the revision petition has been admitted, hence I think it fit and proper to stay the operation of the judgment passed by the trial court dated 30th May, 2005 and affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 22nd June, 2009, provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in the trial court, within a period of 15 days from today. The said amount will be allowed to be withdrawn by the non petitioner no.2 on furnishing usual undertaking for restitution of the amount, in case the revision petition is allowed. 3. The stay application stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK