Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 282Orders/JudgmentsS.138 NI Act | Rajasthan High Court Permits Correction Of Date Of Presentation And Dishonour Of Cheque In Complaint PetitionTitle: Mahaveer Prasad Suman v Lalit Mohan SharmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition seeking amendment in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
Orders/Judgments
Title: Mahaveer Prasad Suman v Lalit Mohan Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition seeking amendment in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and affidavit annexed to correct the typographical errors in relation to the dates of presentation and dishonour of cheque.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman relied upon the Supreme Court case of S.R. Sukumar v Sunaad Raghuram, in which it was held that even if there is no specific provision in CrPC to amend a complaint or a petition, petitions seeking such amendments to correct the curable infirmities can be allowed.
“If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made.”
Lok Adalats Don't Have Adjudicatory Powers: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Permitting Withdrawal Of Criminal Prosecution
Title: Meenu Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory powers and hence order of a Lok Adalat allowing withdrawal of a criminal prosecution cannot be sustined.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman referred to an identical case of Shyam Bacchani v State of Rajasthan & Ors decided by a coordinate bench of the Court where it was held that Lok Adalats had no adjudicatory powers and while allowing the withdrawal of a criminal prosecution, it exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was contrary to law. The Case analysed the provisions on organisation of Lok Adalats as well as on cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats provided under Sections 19 and 20 respectively of Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Continuous Work Of Contractual Employees Does Not Create Any Vested Right For Permanent Employment: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Amita Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) affirmed that individuals hired on a contractual basis through a placement agency do not have any vested interest in being employed by the government. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court case of K.K Suresh and Anr. v Food Corporation of India to arrive at this position.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain relied on the case of Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Ors. in which it was held that rendering services for a long time did not entitle the contractual employees to get a vested right of employment in their favour. The Court said:
“We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed.”
Govt Cannot Disqualify Candidate Based Grounds Which Are Not Mentioned In Advertisement For Job Post: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Sumitra Kumari v The Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has set aside an order of the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan (“the Department”) that rejected a candidate for a government post on the ground that the reason for disqualification was not mentioned as a disqualification criterion in the advertisement for the post. The Court termed the order as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. It said:
“The ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner seems to be wholly illegal and arbitrary for the reason that nowhere the terms and conditions of the advertisement speaks about the qualification and professional training from any particular Board.”
Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act | High Court Asks Govt To Add Provision Of Appeal Against Confiscation Of Vehicle Illegally Transporting Cattle
Title: Rameshwar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
Perusing orders passed by District Collector under Section 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act for confiscation of conveyance used to transport bovine animals without permit, the Rajasthan High Court called upon the State legislature to introduce a provision of appeal.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that it was never the intention of the State legislature to render any finality to the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 6-A and not to provide any remedy of appeal or revision thereagainst in the Act.
"In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Competent Authority, it means the District Collector, under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, should also be amenable to be challenged by way of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, in similar manner of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 7(3) against the order of Collector i.e. the Competent Authority passed under Section 7(1) or (2) of the Act,".
Lok Adalat Cannot Dismisses Case Over Non-Appearance Of Parties: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kripal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that Lok Adalat does not have the power to "dismiss" a case owing to default in appearance by parties.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as per which where Lok Adalat is not able to make an award due to no compromise or settlement being reached between the parties, the record of the case needs to be returned by the Lok Adalat to the court.
Impleading Tenant In Proceedings For Issuance Of Letter Of Administration Under Indian Succession Act Not Allowed: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shri Brijendra Malewar v Shri Ravindra Prakash & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Rajasthan High Court held that a tenant cannot be impleaded under Order 1 Rule X of CPC in relation to proceedings of Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“the Act”). Section 278 of the Act essentially deals with the issuance of a letter of administration in relation to a property in case the owner dies without a legal will.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that in the proceedings under Section 278 of the Act, the necessary parties were the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court further stated that in some cases, the Municipal Corporation or the bank with whom the property was mortgaged might be impleaded as parties because they might have some semblance of legal rights over the property. However, a tenant stands on a different footing altogether since it could not contest the grant or refuse to issue a letter of administration.
Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Constable Dismissed From Service 28 Years Back Over Age Dispute, Directs Govt To Extend All Retiral Benefits
Title: Shri Sunder Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a constable dismissed from service 28 years ago on the grounds of forging documents in relation to his age at the time of his appointment.
As per the competent authority, Petitioner could not have been below 25 years of age at the time of appointment (as required under applicable Rules) since he was married having three children. Thus he was dismissed from service in 1996.
Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena found this reasoning unacceptable, stating that such situation was a common outcome of child marriages, prevalent at the time.
"In the remote rural areas in 1970's-80 the child marriages were solemnized in many cases...in the year 1981 a person may be married and may have three children before he attains the age of 25 years. Therefore the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner cannot be below the age of 25 years at the time of appointment as he was a married and having three children, cannot be accepted,"
Power, Influence Must Never Eclipse Supremacy Of Law: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Of Former MLA For Threatening Witnesses
Title: Harshadhipati v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail of former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga (“respondent”) in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022. The Court found him to be misusing the liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening the witnesses and the complainant. It said:
“Power, influence, position, money, and sentiments, no matter how lofty, must never eclipse the supremacy of law…The actions and conduct of individuals should be in consonance with the spirit and letter of the law, thereby reinforcing the principle that no one is above the legal system.”
Suit Against Passing Off Maintainable Even If Plaintiff And Defendant Have Identical Registered Trademarks: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kutbuddin Kanorwala v Zakir Hussain Kanorwala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
The Rajasthan High Court held that a suit for passing off does not get affected by the two proprietors having similar registered trademarks and hence, it cannot be dismissed on account of Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
A bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur also ruled that Section 28(3) of the Act becomes relevant only when the identical or nearly resembling trademark in question belongs to a particular or same class of goods and services. If the trademark belongs to different classes, the registered proprietors are not immune from suits of trademark infringement against one another.
Rajasthan HC Directs Reinstatement Of Constable 24 Yrs After Dismissal, Rules Different Punishment To Co-Delinquents Violates Article 14
Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of a constable who was dismissed from service 24 years ago, ruling that imposing harsher punishment on a co-delinquent as compared to the other accused, when the charges against both the persons are same, violates right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena made reference to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in which out of the 3 constables and a head constable charged for same acts, 2 were exonerated while one was dismissed from service and other was imposed with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal of service to maintain parity in punishment among the co-delinquents ruling that otherwise, there would be violation of Article 14.
“Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident… Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.”
Dishonour Of Cheque Against Valid Loan Sufficient To Prosecute U/S 138 NI Act, Drawee Need Not Have Money Lending License: Rajasthan HC
Title: Ishak Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that in a case of cheque dishonor, it is to be seen is if the cheque was issued in relation to a valid loan and was dishonored without payment, even after giving notice.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga said whether the complainant, that is drawee of the cheque, had a license to lend on interest is not relevant in the case of cheque dishonor.
It thus upheld an order of the trial court dismissing drawer's application under Section 91 CrPC seeking the complainant to produce his Income Tax Return and money lending license.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Rape Accused After Prosecutrix Claims She Concocted Case To 'Get Rid Of Husband'
Title: Narayan Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused charged for rape under IPC as well as POCSO Act, primarily looking at a representation made by the prosecutrix to the Superintendent of Police that revealed that the rape case was merely a façade created by her to malign her own image so that her husband abandons her.
S.31 State Financial Corporation Act Only Provides Procedure For Enforcement Of Claims Against Debtor, Surety; No Decree Can Be Passed: Rajasthan HC
Title: Balvir Singh v R.F.C.Sriganganagar and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
Rajasthan High Court held that no independent execution petition is maintainable regarding a successful application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 (“the Act”) since the application under Section 31 cannot be termed as plaint in a suit in which a money decree could be passed by the court.
The Court referred to a coordinate bench decision in N.L.P. Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation where it was held that while deciding an application under Section 31, the court could only grant the reliefs mentioned in the Section. Further it was held that the application under the Section could not be termed as a plaint in a suit and the corporation could not pray for a decree for its outstanding dues. Such a direction could be passed only in a money recovery suit and not in an application under Section 31 (1).
Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Alleged Drug Peddler To Attend Sister's Marriage
Title: Rakesh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
The Rajasthan High Court denied interim bail to an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, who sought to be released for 40 days to attend his sister's wedding.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that keeping in mind the charges of drug peddling pending against the accused, granting him bail might be a threat to public safety.
“Granting interim bail for marriage of petitioner's sister may pose a threat to public safety when the applicant is facing pending criminal charges like drug peddling. Keeping the applicant in custody ensures that any potential risks are mitigated while he attends said marriage. Allowing interim bail for said purpose raises concerns about the applicant's potential to flee from justice.”
Illegal, Arbitrary And Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Constable Dismissed From Service Without Inquiry
Title: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the superintendent of police passed under Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”) for being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena also referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India & Anr. v Tulsiram Patel in which powers under Rule 19(ii) were discussed in detail. In the case, it was held that Rule 19(ii) did not talk about absolute impracticability but that holding an inquiry was not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It was further ruled that the disciplinary authority was not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly or out of ulterior motives or merely to avoid an inquiry where the department's case was weak.
Hindu Deity Cannot Hold Land As 'Jagir' If Land Was Cultivated By Or Through Tenant: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Joga Ram v the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that pursuant to the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (“the Act”), Hindu Idols (deity) could hold lands as Jagir only when such land was cultivated by the Shebait/Pujari for such deity either themselves or through hired labour or servant engaged by them so as to be protected from resumption/acquisition under the Act.
If the land was given for cultivation to a tenant or was cultivated through a tenant, it became khatedari of the tenant on which the tenant had direct relations with the state, The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said.
Confession U/S 27 Evidence Act Not Reliable Until There Is Discovery To Corroborate Its Veracity: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Dheerap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that any information gathered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”), is required to be corroborated and supported by recovering or discovering something in pursuance to that information which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime to verify the confession made by the accused to the police officer.
Trial/Investigation For FIR Lodged Before Enforcement Of New Criminal Laws To Be Governed By CrPC, Not BNSS: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Krishna Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
The Bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that where an FIR was registered under Section 154 of CrPC prior to July 1, 2023, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within Section 531(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”). Hence, the entire subsequent investigation procedure and even the trial procedure in relation to that FIR shall be governed by CrPC and not BNSS.
“We are concerned here only with the savings clause contained in sub section 531(2)(a). A perusal thereof clearly reflect that, not only the pending trial / appeal, but even an inquiry and/or investigation, which is underway prior to coming into force of the BNSS, shall have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 and not under the BNSS, 2023.”
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused Who Allegedly Open Fired On Police To Evade Arrest
Title: Koushala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act who allegedly open fired at the policemen at the time of arrest.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni acknowledged the fact that no casualties were suffered by any policemen during the incident whereas the co-accused died during the scuttle and the applicant suffered injuries. Also, the fact of recovering poppy straw that too in substantial quantity of 332 grams was not mentioned in the FIR even though the vehicle was inspected at the time of the incident.
Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had substantial grounds available to him for questioning the prosecution case and the bail application was granted.
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Administrative Order Dismissing Plea Of Stenographer Challenging Adverse Remarks In Annual Assessment
Title: Pooran Chand Gupta v High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 157
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an administrative order dismissing a representation by an aggrieved stenographer, promoted to the post of private secretary cum judgment writer, against adverse remarks received in annual assessment.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Dev Dutt v Union of India in which it was observed that a representation made by a public servant must be decided by the concerned authority in a fair manner and by an authority higher than the one who passed the order against which the representation was filed. Otherwise, there was a likelihood that the representation would be rejected summarily without adequate consideration. This would result in fairness to public servants.
NDPS Act | Preparing Seizure Memo At Place Other Than Scene Of Recovery Makes Seizure Defective, Creates Reasonable Doubt: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kuka Ram v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
Rajasthan High Court ruled that a seizure memo needs to be prepared by the seizure officer at the spot of recovery of contraband material under the NDPS as prescribed under the Standing Instruction issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau failing which the seizure becomes defective, raising reasonable doubt in relation to the manner of seizure.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni held that the procedures prescribed in the Standing Orders were based on logic and needed to be observed mandatorily because if rendered optional, these would turn into a “worthless piece of paper”. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Khet Singh v Union of India in which it was held that if the search and seizure were in defiance of the law and procedure and there was a possibility of the collected evidence being tampered with, the evidence might not be admissible.
Availability Of Civil Remedy No Grounds To Disallow Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings, Both Remedies Are Co-Extensive: Rajasthan HC
Title: Girraj Bansal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the availability of a civil remedy does not preclude setting of criminal proceedings in motion. It was held that the two remedies are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive having different content and consequences. It held:
“It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. Many a cheatings are committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.”
Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Lodged In Bengaluru Citing Settlement Between Parties
Title: Astha Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 160
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a FIR lodged beyond its territorial jurisdiction- in Karnataka's Bengaluru, citing settlement between the married couple. A bench of Justice Sameer Jain, while quashing the FIR, cited a three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) to hold that subject to nature of dispute, in this case a matrimonial one, a case is eminently suitable to be considered for quashing of criminal proceedings, if the parties have buried the hatchet.
Submitting False Injury Report Highly Despicable, Dereliction Of Duty: Rajasthan HC Affirms Compulsory Retirement Of Medical Officer
Title: Dr. K C Chaudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
Rajasthan High Court refused to grant relief to the medical officer who had committed dereliction of duty by submitting a factually wrong injury report in a case. Frowning upon the conduct as highly despicable, the Court observed that for such conduct, compulsory retirement was not a disproportionate punishment warranting any interference of the Court. The bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal held:
“It is apparent that the petitioner has submitted false report and committed dereliction in discharge of his duty. None can undermine the importance of true and correct medico-legal report in the injury cases which has great role in just and fair disposal of the cases. Such a conduct by the Medical Officer is highly despicable as it causes interference with the administration of justice.”
Rajasthan HC Declines Relief To Candidates Terminated From Govt Post After One Year Of Service Due To Modified Answer Key And Revised Merit List
Title: Brijsundar Regar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved individuals who were terminated from their post of livestock assistants one year after their service, because of a modified answer key and consequent change in the merit list.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the appointment letters were unequivocal and categorically clear that the appointment was not absolute but was contingent on subsequent litigation and clearing of the probation period. Furthermore, it was also mentioned in the appointment letter, that the service could be terminated without recorded reasons during this probation period.
Expert Committee's Answer Key Can Only Be Interfered With If Demonstrably Wrong, Must Be Assumed To Be Correct In Case Of Ambiguity: Rajasthan HC
Title: Mahendra Kumar Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Rajasthan High Court held that interference by the Court with regard to the correctness of an answer key published by the expert committee is permissible only if it is demonstrated wrong, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases.
Otherwise, it was stated by the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, that the Court should presume the correctness of the answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority, rather than to the candidate.
"Cruelty Case By Daughter-In-Law Not Related To Official Duty": Rajasthan HC Grants Retiral Benefits To Deceased Govt Employee's Heirs After 21 Yrs
Title: Raghuveer Narayan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the heirs of a deceased government employee whose retiral benefits were suspended by the government pursuant to the filing of a case under Section 498A, IPC against his son and all other family members including himself by his daughter in law.
The The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that retiral benefits awarded at the time of superannuation cannot be subject to suspension upon an alleged criminal offence when the said offence was not related to the official discharge of the duties.
Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Repeated Non-Compliance; Rajasthan High Court Sentences Director Of Company Civil Imprisonment
Case Title: Emeraldstone Management Sia vs Mamta Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati ordered the director of a company to one month of civil imprisonment for failing to disclose its assets in the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
The bench noted that:
“from perusal of the various order-sheets, it is apparent that the respondent-company has failed to comply with the judgment dated 26.09.2023 as has not disclosed its assets by way of filing an affidvit within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the said judgment and further has not complied with the directions passed by this Court dated 22.03.2024 as has not placed on record its Income-tax return along with the audited balance sheet of last five financial years by the next date as directed vide order dated 22.03.2024 and has also failed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in the bank account of the applicant-company as directed in the order dated 22.03.2024.”
Contract Terminated By An Awardee Following Due Process Cannot Be Subsequently Novated By Awardee Itself: Rajasthan High Court
Title: PMP Infratech Private Limited & Ors. v Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a contract terminated by an awardee following due process cannot be novated by the awardee itself.
The Court also held that an administrative order cannot set at nought a duly considered decision or adjudicated order which had bearing on the civil or business rights of contracting parties.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that "the grant and termination of the contract by the State or instrumentalities of the State have to conform to principles of transparency and fairness, which is the corner stone of good governance. The State cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously – It cannot resurrect a terminated contract in the manner done in the case in hands.”
Rajasthan High Court Directs Action Against Investigating Officer For Inserting Inaccurate, 'Imaginary' Facts In Dowry Death Case
Title: Prabhu Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Rajasthan High Court identified serious shortcomings and inaccuracy in the investigation and charge sheet filed by an IO in a case of dowry death, and directed DG Police and Superintendent of Police to take necessary action. The Court observed that it was imperative for the IO to maintain high level of accuracy and candidness in the investigation of an offence as grave as dowry death.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed, “It was imperative on the part of the Investigating Officer that investigation of an offence such as dowry-death maintains a high level of accuracy and candidness. I.O. was also an integral part of prosecution. Therefore, copy of the order be sent to the DG Police Rajasthan and S.P. concerned for information and necessary action.
Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Be Taken Away Citing Heinousness Of Crime: Rajasthan High Court Releases Murder Accused After 3 Years
Title: Kailash Chand v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused charged for murder on the grounds of protracted trial. The court observed that right to have a speedy trial was guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it could not be taken away from the accused for the reason of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. It is imperative for the prosecution to adduce evidence at the earliest if the accused is languishing in jail, it added.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed,
“Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that a further more time will be consumed in completion of the trial. As on date, it cannot be speculated that how more time will be taken in completion of the judicial proceedings. This Court is of the view that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him.”
Witnesses Of Extra-Judicial Confession Related To Victim, 'Tailor-Made' To Bolster Prosecution Case: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Kidnapping Accused
Title: Surajbhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked under Section 365 for kidnapping upon finding that after the eye-witness of the prosecution turned hostile, the case relied on two other prosecution witnesses to whom the accused had allegedly confessed the commission of the offence. However, the Court found that witnesses to be tailor-made only to bolster the prosecution case.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted two peculiar facts about the scenario. Firstly, it was stated that the two witnesses of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused were total strangers to him while they were relatives of the victim i.e. the opposite side.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Sending 'Dummy Candidate' To Take Govt Examination On His Behalf
Title: Prem Raj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked for sending a dummy in an examination for the post of teacher based on the revelation that the candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, and rather that the case was lodged one year after the examination was held.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted a significant fact that despite the allegation by the examination department, the dummy candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, rather the case came to be filed one year after the examination was held. The Court said:
“The startling fact of the case would be that the candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, rather the case was lodged after one year of the examination. Thus, a strong arguable case exists in favour of the petitioner.”
S.24 CPC | Successful Transfer Petition Before District Court Cannot Be Challenged By Filing Another Transfer Petition In HC: Rajasthan HC
Title: Shri Jain Swetambar Sangh Dhamotar & Ors. v Gajendra Singh
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 171
Rajasthan High Court ruled that a successful transfer petition under Section 24, CPC, before a district court cannot be challenged before the high court by filing another transfer petition under Section 24, CPC.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that Section 24 provides for concurrent jurisdiction of the district court and the high court, hence, an unsuccessful party before a district court may approach the high court invoking the same jurisdiction but the party opposing would not be allowed to do so.
Advance Ruling Application Not Restricted Only To Supplier: Rajasthan High Court Quashes AAR's Order Rejecting Application
Title: M/s Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, quashed the AAR's order rejecting the application for the advance ruling as not maintainable on the grounds that the applicant was not the supplier.
The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that the appeal against the advance ruling is provided under Section 100 of the CGST Act. The concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, or the applicant can prefer an appeal against the ruling given under Section 98(4). No appeal is provided against rejection of the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. The application of the petitioner was ousted at threshold under Section 98(2) as not maintainable. Section is unambiguous that an appeal can be filed only against the orders pronounced under Section 98(4) of the CGST Act.
Seizure Memo Loses Credibility If Prepared At Police Station And Not Place Of Recovery: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Major Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an accused booked for attempt to murder and under the NDPS Act, observing that the credibility of the seizure memo loses its significance if it was not prepared at the same place from where the recovery was made but was taken by the police to the police station to prepare the same.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted the fact that during cross-examination, the seizing officer mentioned that all the memos including seizure memo, recovery memos, etc were prepared in the police station. The Court considered this fact to be the one putting a dent on the prosecution case since it was required by law that recovery memo needs to be prepared at the same place from where the recovery was made.
"Discrimination Based On Physical Attribute": Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Woman Denied Geologist Post Citing 1cm Short Height
Title: Monika Kanwar Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
In a significant ruling by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench of Justice Farjnad Ali granted relief to a woman fighting to get the post of the geologist that she had secured based on merit but was denied by the government since she was considered 1 cm shorter than the minimum limit prescribed in some guidelines.
The Court held that when the service rules for the post did not prescribe any criteria in relation to height, rejecting a meritorious candidate based on certain non-mandatory instructions amounted to discrimination based on physical attributes and consequently a violation of fundamental rights of the aspirant.
Rajasthan HC Orders Action Against Medical Officer Who Erroneously Classified Victim's Injuries As Life-Threatening In Attempt To Murder Case
Title: Bhanwar Khan v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
A bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Mishra at the Rajasthan High Court frowned upon an allegedly erroneous report prepared by a medical officer in an attempt to murder case and directed the Secretary, Medical and Health Department to take appropriate action against the officer. The Court directed the order to be sent to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department for appropriate action to be taken against the errant officer.
Trial Court Rejecting Application For FSL Report Of Weapon In Attempt To Murder Case Leads To Miscarriage Of Justice: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Mohd. Atik Sheikh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of an Additional Sessions Judge that had disallowed the application filed by the complainant seeking an FSL report of the alleged weapon and the blood-stained clothes in a case of attempt to murder.
The A bench of Justice Arun Monga held that denying the FSL report which would assist the trial court in correctly concluding the role of the accused was a miscarriage of justice. It was held:
“As regards the seeking of the FSL report, same will rather go a long way to assist the learned trial court in coming to the correct conclusion qua the role attributed to the accused in causing injuries. To deny the application without seeking the report would thus result in a miscarriage of justice.”
Rajasthan HC Denies Relief To Govt Job Aspirants Excluded From Selection Process For Improperly Filling OMR Sheet
Title: Payal Soni & Anr. v Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
The Rajasthan High Court denied relief to candidates of a public examination, who incorrectly filled their OMR sheets after failing to follow instructions, leading to the rejection of their sheets from the evaluation process. The A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar said:
“It is of utmost importance that in order to preserve the sanctity of the selection process for filling up posts under public employmentthe entire process is not only clearly laid down but is scrupulously followed not only by the Examination Agency but also by the candidates.”
No Sufficient Cause: Rajasthan HC Declines To Condone 'Inordinate Delay' In Filing Appeal By Party Who Made Unsubstantiated Mental Illness Claims
Title: Prachin Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
The Rajasthan High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay filed after 3 years due to the petitioner's alleged mental illness leading him to be unaware of the proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhinghan observed that the delay could not be condoned mechanically in the absence of any sufficient reason. It was found that the petitioner had failed to furnish relevant material to prove his claims of mental illness which allegedly prevented him from being aware of the proceedings which were initiated.
When Multiple Contradictory Dying Declarations Are Recorded, One Given To Magistrate Must Be Relied Upon: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Jeet Singh v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court reversed and set aside a conviction order after 35 years, acquitting the surviving accused out of the total three accused who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in 1989.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that in case of multiple dying declarations which are contradictory to one another, the statement recorded by a Magistrate or a higher officer can be relied upon keeping in mind the elements of truthfulness and being free of suspicion that are required to rely upon dying declarations.
“Writ Of Quo Warranto Meant To Prevent Abuse Of Public Offices”: Rajasthan High Court Removes Ineligible Nagar Parishad Executive Officer
Title: Vishnu Kumar Saini v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the very purpose of seeking a writ of quo warranto is to prevent the abuse or usurpation of public offices and to ensure that those who hold such positions do so legitimately and within the bounds of the law.
The observation was made by Justice Sameer Jain while setting aside the Respondent's appointment, belonging to Executive Officer-III category, as the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad of Chomu town near Jaipur.
The bench held that as per the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules 1963, only a person belonging to the category of a Commissioner could be appointed as the Executive Officer of any Municipal Council.
Recovery Notice Issued By Mining Dept To Be Preceded With Demand Order: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Damodar Lal Gupta v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court set aside recovery notices issued by the Department of Mining and Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, for recovering amount payable against Short Term Permit (“STP”) granted to the petitioner, without any preceding order of demand of such recovery.
Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed it was trite law that recovery notices have to be preceded with an order creating demand for such recovery.
Depression, Old Age, Assessee's Status As Small-Scale Surveyor To Be Considered As Genuine Hardship; Rajasthan High Court Condones Delay
Title: Padam Raj Bhandari Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in order to claim a refund for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15 on the grounds of genuine hardship.
The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the depression, old age, long pendency of the issue, and the petitioner's status as a small-scale surveyor with no negativity in revenue collection by the tax authorities (like scrutiny) attached have to be considered as genuine hardship.
Refusal To Undergo Medical Examination Not Enough To Negate Minor's Accusation Of Rape: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that a minor rape victim's refusal to undergo medical examination alone cannot be the basis to disbelieve the allegations levelled by her.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni thus refused anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused on the alleged ground of false implication. It said,
“On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be clear that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., victim has specifically alleged offence of rape against petitioner. In that view of the matter, if victim had refused to undergo medical examination, her above statement cannot be negated on this basis alone and it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated.”
Title: M/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal by the appellant challenging an order of the Transport Department suspending his vehicle's registration without affording any opportunity for a hearing.
It was held that the order was made by the Transport Department in excess of its lawfully prescribed authority and thus was void ab initio illegal.
The Court observed that when there was an allegation of not providing any opportunity for hearing, it was not sufficient to state that the notice was issued, but some proof of service of notice in the manner prescribed by law needed to be placed on record. The Court held that no such evidence was placed on record from the side of the respondent department.
Title: Manju Garg v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court took serious note against the increasing issue of teacher absenteeism, and ineligible and unqualified proxy teachers in government schools of Rajasthan, wherein government employed teachers illegally appoint unemployed youths who may not even have the basis qualifications to teach, to work in their place, "playing with the future and career of the students at large".
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Rajasthan government to launch a campaign of “Zero Tolerance Policy of Proxy Teachers” with a motto “Attendance of teachers in school is must and proxy teachers are not acceptable in any way” and have issued interim directions to be followed for implementation of the policy and campaign.
Title: Gopal Mehra & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Considering the actions of the trial court as a case of 'disobedience and judicial indiscipline' for ignoring the directions issued by a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the Court directed the matter to be placed before the same coordinate bench for taking action against the presiding officer of the concerned trial court.
The Court held that the trial court not only ignored that order passed by the coordinate bench, but also deliberately passed an unreasoned order, erroneously framing charges under Section 307 when no such charge was made out from any angle. Hence, the Court set aside the order of the trial court and discharged the accused from the charges under Section 307. The Court ruled this to be a case of disobedience and judicial indiscipline.
Title: Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of an accused booked under the NDPS Act and observed that violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act (the “Act”) could not be considered by the Court at the stage of granting bail. These questions can only be answered at the trial stage in light of all the evidence put forth. It said:
“Youth forms the basic unit of the society. The harmony of the society depends on its younger members. When the members of society become drug abusers then it disturbs the entire societal harmony. Drugs and crime cannot be considered separately, in isolation from each other, especially if they emerge from a common set of circumstances…The addicts are, therefore, an added burden to the law-abiding population.”
Title: M/S Sant International Jewellers v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea against an order of the State Government by which an application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in the Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) to set up a Gems and Jewelry industry was rejected.
A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the scope of court interference in tender matters was very limited since it was not a case of discrimination or irrationality. It was stated that since all the applications were rejected uniformly to re-advertise the plots on revised rates, it would not be plausible to interfere with the decision.
Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Rajasthan High Court issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.
The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.
Title: Kulddeep v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of one of the many accused in a murder case, who was neither named in the FIR nor had any allegations levelled against him.
The Court observed that even though the applicant had not actively taken part in actually and physically attacking the victim, by being involved in other manner in the crime, the gravity of his role did not decrease.
“In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail.”
Title: Payal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to various sanitation workers whose services were terminated as their experience letter was not certified by the competent authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the post.
A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its August 2 order held that since such a requirement was not prescribed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 the condition mentioned in the advertisement/notification was foreign to the Rules.
Title: Sajwar Khan v Gaje Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Noting the "negligent conduct" of a man in delaying the trial of a recovery suit by almost 19 years, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his plea for setting aside an ex-parte decree which was passed due to his non-appearance in the suit.
A single judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed, "Thus, upon perusal of the record, and the findings of the learned Trial Court, it is clear that the conduct of the defendant has been negligent and causing delay and the entire factual incident at least makes it clear that he has been delaying the case repeatedly and the original suit has been delayed for almost 19 years".
Title: Kailash Tolani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court held that in case unfair or improper investigation of an FIR, the aggrieved person can seek recourse by approaching a superior police officer as per Section 36 CrPC.
Single bench of Justice Arun Monga rejected a petition filed directly before it, alleging slow and unfair probe. It held,
"The investigation is still at a very nascent stage, and the petition appears to have been filed prematurely without awaiting its outcome. Even otherwise, in my opinion, the petitioner ought to have availed of other available legal remedies for redressal of his grievance before approaching this Court."
Appeal To Be Decided On Merits Irrespective Of Some Laches Or Delay On Part Of Assessee: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shree Shakti Minerals Versus The Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court held that a right to appeal as provided under the statute must be decided on merits irrespective of some laches or delay on the part of the assessee.
The bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act would bind the statutory authority, which cannot condone the delay except the circumstances envisaged under the CGST Act, but limitations are not applied in a writ proceeding.
Title: Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court accepted an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and observed that the issue of non-arbitrability of a dispute under an arbitration agreement falls under the domain of the arbitral tribunal in the first instance and the courts have the power to only “second look” after passing of the arbitral award. The Court also opined that the question regarding the claim being barred by res judicata does not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, and hence, it also needs to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal only.
Title: Rajeev Sidana & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed with the prayer to direct the Government to grant 30% bonus marks for appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), since such bonus marking was done by the Government for various other posts.
The Court held that prescribing eligibility conditions including bonus marking was purely a policy decision falling within the domain of the State Government that cannot be interfered with unless it was demonstrably capricious and arbitrary. It was observed that,
“If the State Government has chosen not to provide any bonus marks for the services rendered by persons like petitioners on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), then the same cannot be held to be discriminatory simply on the ground that in other recruitment processes, the State Government generally provides for grant of bonus marks. It is the policy decision of the State Government to grant or not to grant the bonus marks in a particular recruitment and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary.”
Title: Kapil Kumar Labana & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the graduates of Tirupati College of Nursing (“College”) who were denied registration by the Rajasthan Nursing Council (“RNC”) on account of the affiliation of their college, the Tirupati College of Nursing being canceled by the RNC for want of requisite NOC from the State Government.
The Court directed that the students had taken admission in the College when its affiliation was valid which came to be cancelled only after these students had completed their course.
Title: Sanjib v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
The Rajasthan High Court laid down rules for the release of vehicles that have been seized under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”).
The Court held that if confiscation proceedings get initiated under the Act, then the vehicle(s) in question can be released only on payment of the penalty amount and the compounding fees.
However, if no such proceedings have begun and only an appeal has been filed against the penalty/compounding order passed by the mining officer, then the petitioner shall be granted liberty to approach the competent court to get the vehicle released which can be allowed on the petitioner furnishing a bond or a bank guarantee for an amount equaling to the current value of the impounded vehicle.
Title: Rajesh Bishnoi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
The Rajasthan High Court while hearing the custody case of a 6-year-old was gifted flowers and a hand-crafted pen stand by the child as a symbol of appreciation for the mediation sessions held with him. While acknowledging the gesture of the boy, a division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman said:
“This Court acknowledges and appreciates the creativity and positivity of the child and also his sweet gesture and thank him for the wonderful gifts, which he has brought for us. At the end, the child also though in a soft tone, expressed his thanks to the Court. We shall preserve the precious gifts made of craft paper in our Chambers as a 'Symbol of Strength of Mediation Law'.”
Non-Compliance With CrPC, NDPS Act Cannot Be Argued At Stage Of Bail In International Drug Smuggling Cases: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Balveer v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to an individual booked under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) for allegedly being involved in an attempt to smuggle drugs from Pakistan.
The Court held that non-compliance with provisions under the NDPS Act or CrPC cannot be argued at the stage of bail in a case of international smuggling of contraband.
"On perusal of record, it is prima facie revealed that issues sought to be argued by the petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance of various provisions of NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. cannot be countenanced at this stage in such a case of international smuggling of contraband drug."
Title: Mahesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a government employee who has been appointed by a regular mode of selection, and is on probation, cannot be treated as a temporary government employee whose services can be terminated by giving one month notice under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (“the Rules”) which is meant for temporary employees.
Title: Khiya Ram Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
The Rajasthan High Court took up a peculiar case concerning drug smuggling wherein the Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”) and the Rajasthan State Police were accusing each other's officials of being involved with an accused in the case and had filed counter cases against one another.
Due to the complexity of the matter, Justice Arun Monga directed the investigation to be transferred to a neutral and independent third party i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), Jodhpur.
“Factual narrative in the case herein is rather glaring. It appears that two Investigative Agencies are at loggerheads, embroiled in a direct conflict, each striving to attribute criminal culpability concerning the contraband in question i.e. 5 kg of opium. After deliberating the entire matter and on perusal of case file, a consensus has been arrived at by all present, that, to ensure a neutral, independent, and fair investigation, it is considered rather expedient to transfer the entire matter to a third neutral agency i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jodhpur.”
Title: Madan Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Rajasthan High Court modified a trial court order issuing non-bailable warrants against an individual accused in a dowry complaint on their failure to appear before the court, irrespective of the fact that a negative final report was filed by the investigation officer in the case.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that personal liberty of a citizen could not be taken so lightly as to mechanically pass orders to arrest him, merely for production before the court unless there was a deliberate attempt to evade court process.
Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition for 15 days of parole filed by a father convicted of raping his daughter. The convict had absconded during his first parole which was granted in 2018 and his father had denied giving any undertaking for his conduct during his application for second parole in 2022.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that a balance needed to be achieved between the legislative intent of POCSO, that there should be minimal contact between the convict and the victim, and the statutory rights of the convict. Accordingly, it was directed that while being out on parole, the petitioner shall reside at a place that is away from the residence of the victim and shall not visit her.
Title: Ranveer Kumar v Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an aspirant for a government job 9 years after his candidature was rejected, despite being meritorious, on the grounds of a pending criminal case against him.
The Court observed that firstly, denying government employment merely on the grounds of a pending criminal case was illegal, arbitrary and unjust because as per criminal jurisprudence, an accused was considered innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, the Court also highlighted that the offences for which the petitioner was charged were petty, involving no moral turpitude.
Title: Bhopal Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a person wrongly arrayed in an NDPS case by the police, without conducting any investigation regarding his identity, solely relying upon the statement of the co-accused.
The Court observed that all material disclosed that the petitioner was not the person appearing in the statements of the co-accused but some other person having a different name. The Court held that in the event of lack of any direct material proving that the petitioner was the same person as mentioned by the co-accused, he could not be arrayed as an accused merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.
Title: Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to 60 students who had taken admission in Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy (“College”) and had spent two years in learning a course, however declaration of their results was put on hold by the examining authority i.e. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (“University”) since the approval of the College by the Pharmacy Council of India (“Council”) was under dispute.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that even though granting of admission to these students by the College was irregular, however, dismissing the petition would impact the future of these 60 students who had bona-fidely taken admission in the College and had spent two years assuming that the College was entitled to admit them.
Title: Medipulse Hospital v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the Medipulse Hospital (“the Hospital”) which was de-empanelled from the Central Government Health Scheme (“CGHS/Scheme”) for five years by the Government of India pursuant to a complaint against the Hospital by a retired central government employee alleging deficient services by the Hospital.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that there was no statutory provision or stipulation for de-empaneling a Hospital that too for five years from the CGHS that could be seen as granting power to the Additional Director, CGHS to de-empanel a hospital from the scheme.
Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Rajasthan High Court held that no special leave is required to file an appeal under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), against an acquittal order wherein the complainant in the case is the victim himself.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 413 of BNSS corresponded to Section 372, CrPC where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government employee who was dismissed from his job without a hearing 15 years ago, by directing the government to refer his industrial dispute to the labour court.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Government of India (“respondent”) where the respondent had refused to make reference for settlement of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. It was held that,
“The function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It, therefore, cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. The question whether the person raising the dispute was a workman or not, cannot be decided by the Government, in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act. This dispute is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court after its reference.”
Title: Jubair Bhati v Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
The Rajasthan High Court laid down that justice earned on merits of the case by litigants shall not be adversely affected in cases pending for a long time due to prolonged adjudication with no interim order operating.
In doing so, the high court observed that the rights of a person needs to be protected against its dilution due to such delay.
A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the "majesty of Rule of Law" requires that a person who has approached the Court in time and without any delay, who has laid threadbare all his details without any failure and remains under the umbrella of the adjudication for a long time, cannot be denied the benefit due to time lapse during which the matter remained pending.
Title: Abhishek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
While hearing a murder case involving the bajri (sand) mafia the Rajasthan High Court transferred the matter to CBI after observing that the investigation conducted by the State Police and CID had been so "unfair, tainted and incomplete" that it had "pricked the judicial conscience" of the Court.
The High Court further said that in a sensitive matter such as this one where offences against marginalised communities is alleged to have been committed, the investigation authorities had "miserably failed in their task to uphold the tenets of a fair investigation" as stipulated by the Cr.P.C. and the SC/ST Act wherein despite knowledge of a cognizable offense, no timely FIR was registered, log-book was not maintained and the roznamcha was not prepared.
Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
Rajasthan High Court ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.
“In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”
Title: PCIT Versus Smt. Sonal Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed the income tax reassessment and held that the Income Tax Department had not done any investigation or held an inquiry. There was no other material except the value determined by the A.O.
The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that the additions were made solely based on the order passed by the AO determining the value of the goods imported. The order passed by the AO was quashed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/S Larsen and Tourbo v Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial one needed to be interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the intention of the parties of referring a dispute to arbitration, rather than invalidating the same on technicalities.
Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v Gyan Chand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the doctrine of proportionality in service matters cannot be invoked in relation to an employee whose basis of attaining employment was fraudulent.
It was also held that the High Court's scope of interference with a disciplinary authority's decision on the quantum of penalty in service matters is minimal.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that the doctrine of proportionality could not be invoked to favour an employee who attained employment based on a forged document. The court said that in such cases, no length of tenure could create any sympathy in the minds of the Court to reduce the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Title: Shri Ramniwas Dham Trust v Nirmla Choudhary & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
The Rajasthan High Court observed that a power of attorney holder of a trust who is also its manager holds the capacity of a trustee and so can depose as well as lead evidence on behalf of the trust.
The High Court held that it was an admitted fact that the power of attorney holder was also the manager of the trust. The Court referred to the definition of “trustee” and “working trustee” under the Rajasthan Public trust Act, 1959 and observed that the definitions were explicit about the fact that the manager of a trust holds the capacity of a trustee. And in turn the power of attorney holder who was also the manager of the trust, was also holding the capacity of a trustee.
Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Smt. Madni Bai & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 Kgs does not need a separate driving license other than the one issued under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) for driving a Light Motor Vehicle (“LMV”).
“That there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive a transport vehicle of such class without endorsement to that effect…”
Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Rajbala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in the case of a private vehicle insured against the “Act only Policy”, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the occupants of the vehicle since they are not considered to be the “third parties” as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“Act”). The Court said:
“The position of law as it stands at present is that in case of a private vehicle insured against “Act only Policy”, the liability of occupants is not covered as the protection of Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only available against the third party risks and the occupants of a private vehicle are not third parties. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot be issued to the insurer.”
Title: Ashok Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
Rajasthan High Court ruled that powers to suspend a civil servant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 shall be used by the competent authority with due caution and vigilance, only after considering its necessity and recording the reasons behind the satisfaction of the same.
The Court held that suspending a civil servant without recording such reasons, only by instructions in circulars, or by word of mouth, or a slip of pen, amounts to a colourable exercise of power.
Qualification Of “Adeeb” Is Equivalent To Class 10th Qualification: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Gomi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
While reiterating that the educational qualification termed as "Adeeb" is equivalent to Secondary Examination (10th Class), the Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman to the post of Health Worker (Female) which had the eligibility criteria of 10th standard qualification.
Referring to the decision of a coordinate bench (at Jaipur) in Jahida Salma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2022) a single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, "The Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in the case of Jahida Salma has dealt with the controversy in detail and has come to the conclusion that the educational qualification of 'Adeeb' is equivalent to Secondary Examination on the basis of Division Bench's judgments rendered in the case of Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Miss. Firdos Tarannum & Anr".
Title: Mukesh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
Rajasthan High Court ruled that simply mentioning in the charge sheet that the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was made out against an individual was not sufficient to keep that person behind bars until any material was attached to the charge sheet to show the involvement or participation of the individual.
The Court held that in the absence of even a single piece of evidence, the applicant could not be kept behind bars only based on the assertion of the police officer to the effect of him being guilty when, strangely, he had not been named anywhere by the principal accused other than in his statement before the police.
Title: Kamla Devi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Rajasthan High Court, while hearing an anticipatory bail application, observed that if a person speculates through someone else about incurring potential losses in future, and in consequence to that speculation disposes of his immovable property to near relative(s), then such properties cannot be saved later and the seller shall be responsible for the consequences since he cannot be allowed to remain rich while ruining others.
“No person can be allowed to become unjust rich and thrive upon the goodwill and reputation of others which is got established over a period of years. If a person has legally speculated through someone else, then he and his properties are responsible for the consequences and later he cannot save his properties and remained rich at the cost of others and by ruining them.”
Title: Amar Chand v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
Rajasthan High Court ordered the release of a man who was serving life imprisonment for last 10 years, after being convicted for murdering his pregnant wife.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman, while hearing the appeal of the convict, altered the charge of the convict from murder to culpable homicide and reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to period of 10 years already undergone in prison by him.
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that in case of death of a child in a motor vehicles accident, the compensation cannot be awarded for such death under the head of “future prospects”.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. in which the Supreme Court had rejected the argument of increasing the compensation awarded to the concerned parties in relation to death of their child by granting further compensation under the separate head of “future prospects” since it was opined that the head could not be used as far as children were concerned.
Title: Dudaram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
Rajasthan High Court ruled that mere existence of some kind of tiff between the accused and the deceased could not be taken as evidence of accused's motive to kill the deceased. It thus granted bail to a murder accused who was behind bars since 2021, only on the basis of circumstantial evidences put forth by the prosecution.
The prosecution had put forth three main circumstantial evidences against the accused out of which one of the main arguments was, there were hostile relations between the parties.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted,
"Simply because of some ordinary kind of tiff cannot be taken as an evidence of motive to kill the deceased...Serious doubt seems to be a reason behind arrest of the petitioners in the alleged crime, however, it is well nigh settled that suspicion, however, it may grave, cannot be a substitute or legal proof."
Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.
Title: Jagdish Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Rajasthan high Court ruled that Rule 76 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“the Rules”) applies only when the lease holder dies intestate, without any will. It was opined that Rule 76 operated in a situation where the lease holder died without any will. In case of a will, the property transmitted to the beneficiary as per law and in such a case, the beneficiary of the mining lease was not required to submit an NOC to mutate the lease in his/her name.
“When a person executes a will, the property transmits to the beneficiary by operation of law. And when the beneficiary claims mutation in his/ her name on the basis of will, requirement of 'NOC' does not arise. This Court is firmly of the view that NOC or affidavit or consent of the petitioner is not required, for the purpose of mutating the land in the name of beneficiary of the will.”
Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners
Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.
The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.
Title: Neha Kumar Jogi v the Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition of a NEET candidate seeking an increase in marks and consequent revision in rank, alleging unjust and arbitrary deduction of marks despite marking the correct answer in the OMR Sheet.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain highlighted that firstly, the student had raised the objection after the termination of the window for raising such objections set by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) and secondly, she had marked two answers for the concerned question which was against the explicit instructions given for filling the OMR Sheet.
Title: Yatendra Kumar Sharma v Smt. Swati Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition seeking directions to the District Court for expeditious decision on a divorce petition within a time bound period of six months.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that in the absence of any statistics on pending or disposal of cases before the concerned court, no sweeping directions could be passed to decide a case on priority. The Court opined that such an order interfered with the cause list of the court and also the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.
Title: M/s Shakti Foundation v the Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that there cannot be an absolute rule of estoppel wherein one is not allowed to raise a dispute even after he/she had signed a no claim or discharge certificate, and each case should be looked into on its own facts and circumstances.
“This Court does not find any strong ground to hold that the applicant is estopped to raise the dispute, merely on the basis of receiving the balance amount refunded by RIICO. Therefore, such contention raised by and on behalf of respondents is hereby rejected.”
Title: Kusum Lata v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 233
Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed in relation to a 2-year-old by a widowed mother, accused of abetting the suicide of her husband by in-laws.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal ruled that mother being the natural guardian and in sound financial position as opposed to the respondent-grandparents was entitled to the child's custody.
Title: Virendra Singh & Ors. v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the validity of awards passed by National Lok Adalat cannot be challenged only on technical count, unless it is established on record that any fraud or mischief was involved.
“It is clear that the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final and the same cannot be assailed in a routine manner, before the Writ Court unless allegation of fraud are there against a party. An award can be assailed only if the same is passed without jurisdiction or is obtained through impersonation or playing fraud with the Court.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“the Act”) which lays down that every award passed by the Lok Adalat is deemed decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
Mere Transcripts Not Proof Of Voice In Tape-Records: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Babu Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that mere transcript of a tape record is not proof that the voice so recorded is of the accused.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar referred to the Apex Court decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors. where it was held that the tape records of speeches fall under the category of “Documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, standing on no different footing than photographs, which could be admissible in evidence only on satisfying the certain conditions as mentioned therein.
NGO Approved By State Functionaries And Receiving Subsidy Under Govt Policy Cannot Be Considered “State”: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Poonam v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
Rajasthan High Court held that an NGO that was approved by the functionaries of the State and was given subsidy under a government scheme cannot be considered “State”.
The division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar opined that,
“The respondent No.4 is an NGO and cannot be treated as a State merely because it has been approved by functionaries of the State. As per “Mahila Suraksha Evam Salaah Kendra Viyaman Evam Anudaan Yojna”, the State is only giving subsidy to the NGOs for looking into grievances of the female. Be that as it may, learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent No.4 – Sansthan is not a State…”
Criminal Justice System Extends Beyond Punishment, Focused On Reformation: Rajasthan HC Orders Release Of Poor Convicts On Probation Without Deposit
Title: Ganesh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court highlighted the importance of reformative justice and observed that apart from punishing and deterring against crime, principles and objectives of criminal law are also focused on reformation of offenders, rooted in the concept of probation.
“Modern criminal Justice system often aims to balance punishment with rehabilitation, emphasizing the potential for positive change in individuals who have committed crime. The goal of criminal law extends beyond mere punishment. While punishment serves to deter and hold individuals accountable for their actions, there is a growing recognition of the importance of addressing the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behaviour.”
Rajasthan HC Requests Counsel To Bear Delivery Expenses Of Pregnant Minor Rape Victim Upon State Govt's Denial To Provide Funds
Title: X v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
In a case involving a minor victim of rape, a bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta at the Rajasthan High Court requested the advocate appearing for the pregnant minor to bear all expenses relating to her delivery while hearing a petition filed by the minor's father seeking a direction to the State to bear expenses upon their denial to do so.
The Court in turn requested Adv. Shreyansh Mardia to bear the delivery expenses of the minor, which was agreed to by the counsel.
Separating 7-Yr-Old From Mother & Handing Over To Father Settled In Dubai Not In Child's Best Interest Irrespective Of Father's Finances: Rajasthan HC
Title: Pratyush Shastri v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the far better financial condition of a father cannot be the decisive factor in affirming that the child's welfare would be best assured if the minor's custody was handed over to the father.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a father who was alleging illegal and wrongful detention of his minor child by his wife who had brought the child to India illegally, without his knowledge, from his native country Dubai where the child was born and ordinarily residing.
Compromise In Rape Cases Involving Minors Has No Legal Value, State Has Duty To Prosecute Accused With Full Rigour: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Laxman Charan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court held that in a case of rape involving a minor girl, a compromise arrived at by the accused with the victim girl and her parents has no legal value and cannot be given effect since such compromises are often laced with coercion, undue influence or even financial incentives.
“Such compromises often reflect coercion or undue influence rather than a genuine settlement. Otherwise, why would guardians of a girl, who is a victim of such a heinous crime, agree to compromise with the accused.”
Leniency Towards Habitual Offenders Diminishes Effect Of Legal Sanctions: Rajasthan HC Rejects Bail Of Journalist Booked For Blackmail, Extortion
Title: Manish Rathore v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to a habitual offender, who was alleged to have misused his name as a journalist by threatening innocent people with reputational harm and business disruption to illegally extort money from them by blackmailing.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that in such cases victims often did not come forward to file an FIR since they fear attracting unwanted attention to their business, potentially harming their reputation even if they were innocent.
Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Deprived From Public Employment Despite Being Eligible & Meritorious On Hyper-Technical Grounds: Rajasthan HC
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Sunita & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the intention behind enacting the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”), and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“2016 Act”) was to ensure full participation of people with disabilities (“PWDs”) in public employment and all-round efforts were needed to ensure that no opportunity was left for their integration into the mainstream society.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed that it was the duty of a welfare State to ensure that PWDs are not deprived of public employment on hyper-technical grounds.
Procedural And Technical Hurdles Cannot Impede Substantial Justice: Rajasthan HC Grants Appointment To Candidate Who Erred In Submitting Application
Title: Bhagwan Puri Goswami v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the application of rules should be with a humane approach and if procedural violation does not cause prejudice, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.
“When substantial and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice.”
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur granted relief to the petitioner who had applied for the post of a lab technician but was denied appointment despite securing more marks than the selected candidates.
Offence Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Can't Stand Together: High Court Laments "Routine" FIRs By Rajasthan Police In Commercial Matters
Title: Rana Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 244
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 420 (cheating) and 405 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC (corresponding to Section 318 and 316 of Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respectively) are antithetical to each other and cannot not be invoked together against an accused person.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that under Section 405, the main element is entrustment of property by the complainant to the accused and no element of dishonesty is present on part of the latter before or at the time of such entrustment.
However, under Section 420, it is necessary to show that dishonesty on part of the accused existed prior to or at the time of delivery of the property and the accused induced the complainant to deliver the property under false pretenses.
Enquiry Officer Acting As Prosecutor And Leading Examination-In-Chief Vitiates Departmental Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Mahendra Singh v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that in a departmental enquiry, if the enquiry officer himself/ herself acted as the prosecutor, the entire departmental enquiry would stand vitiated.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Union of India v Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) wherein “...principles were laid down by the Apex Court, that the adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, he shall not act as a prosecutor/adjudicator, a witness cannot become an adjudicator, an adjudicator must not include his personal knowledge to the facts of the case while conducting the enquiry and the adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his superiors or others.”
Tailor Kanhaiya Lal Murder Case: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Mohammad Javed, Accused Of Doing Recce
Title: Mohammed Javed v National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
Rajasthan High Court granted bail to one of the accused, Mohammed Javed, in the tailor Kanhaiyalal murder case that took place in 2022, on the grounds that the prosecution was not able to present any evidence to show that the appellant conspired with the primary accused.
The division bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari held that prima facie there was not enough evidence to show that the appellant conspired with the primacy accused in the murder. It was observed that the appellant was a young boy of 19 years, having no criminal antecedents, who had been in prison for two years and still the trial would take a long time to conclude.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed, granting bail to the appellant on the condition of furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh each.
In Absence Of Fraud, Mischief, Misrepresentation, Public Employment Can't Be Terminated, Reiterates Rajasthan High Court
Title: Gauri Shankar Jhinger & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that public employment of individuals granted on merit, without any fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide on part of the employee, could not be terminated only on the ground of revision in the cut off marks that too at a quite belated stage.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that while exercising its powers under Article 226, the Court was also a court of equity, and it was its duty to advance the ends of justice and uproot injustice while exercising that power.
All Female Employees Entitled To Benefit Of 180 Days Maternity Leave Under Maternity Benefit Act: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies
Title: Minakshi Chaudhary v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 248
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that granting only 90 days of maternity leave to female employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) based on Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (“1965 Regulations”) instead of 180 days as mandated by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”) after the 2017 amendment, was not only discriminatory but also violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recommended RSRTC to amend the Regulation 74 of 1965 Regulations and increase 90 days maternity leave to 180 days.
Furthermore, the Court issued a general mandamus to the Government of India, Ministry of Personal Public Grievance and Pension, to issue necessary instructions to all unrecognized and private sectors to make suitable amendments in their provisions for granting 180 days of maternity benefits to female employees.
Accused's Fundamental Right To Liberty Includes Right To Participate In Significant Family Events: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Mohammed Sadeeque v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
The Rajasthan High Court granted permission to an accused charged for attempt to murder and under the Arms Act, to travel abroad to attend his daughter's engagement ceremony.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga set aside the order of Sessions Judge that had dismissed the application filed by the accused to this effect and held that despite being an accused, the petitioner still had the fundamental right to personal liberty which included the right to travel and participate in significant family events.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband Accused In Wife's Dowry Death, Cites Delay & Inconsistencies Between Dying Declarations
Title: State of Rajasthan v Narsi Ram & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 250
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against an acquittal order passed 35 years ago in an alleged case of murder owing to unfulfilled dowry demands. The court noted that the implicating dying declaration was made 16 days after the first dying declaration and consequently the report was also lodged after an inordinate delay of 16 days after the incident.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that no explanation was put forth for the inordinate delay of 16 days in lodging the report against the accused based on the second dying declaration, and expressed the possibility of influence or tutoring by the relatives of the deceased during this time.
Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Expunge Trial Court's Deleterious Remarks Against IO, Says Order Satisfies 'Triple Test'
Title: Giriraj Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 251
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea moved by an Assistant Sub Inspector (“petitioner”) seeking to expunge certain deleterious remarks made about him by a trial court, while he was acting as the Investigating officer in a criminal case.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain relied on the Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Naim in which the Apex Court laid down the following three parameters to be considered by the courts while passing disparaging remarks against persons/authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the court:
“(a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself;
(b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct, justifying the remarks; and
(c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.”
Motor Accident | Claimant Can Approach Tribunal Having Jurisdiction Over 'Issuing Office' Of Offending Vehicle's Insurer: Rajasthan HC
Title: Magma General Insurance Company Limited v Vinod Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that a claimant seeking compensation for motor accident can approach the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the issuing office of the offending vehicle's insurer.
A single judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman referred to Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down that an application for compensation could be filed either with the claims tribunal which has jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred; or with the claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction where the claimant resides or carries on business; or with the claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the "defendant resides".
'Awaiting Posting Order' Cannot Be Passed In Routine Manner But Only To Meet Contingencies: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 253
Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition challenging an 'Awaiting Posting Order' (“APO”) passed by the State Medical and Health Services Department (“the Department”) during the ban period imposed by the Government, in the absence of any urgency or even clearance from the office of the Chief Minister.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said,
“The awaiting posting order also does not mention any exigency of service, nor it discloses the fact that the same has been passed after taking permission from the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. In the opinion of this Court, the State Government cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by passing the order contrary to the directions issued by imposing the ban vide order dated 04.02.2023”
When Selection Criteria Is Mentioned On Website, Non-Mentioning In Advertisement For Post Does Not Vitiate Selection Process: Rajasthan HC
Title: Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that not mentioning of selection criteria in the advertisement for a public post when the same was explicitly mentioned on the website of the concerned department would not vitiate the entire selection process since the criteria could not be said to have been added after the initiation of the selection process.
“It is also noted that the Rules of selection were not changed for the selection process as they are very much in existence prior to the date of selection on the Website of RPSC, however, non mentioning of the same in the advertisement will not vitiate the entire selection process.”
Distributing Marks Of Deleted Questions Equally Among Remaining Questions Instead Of Awarding Bonus Marks Is Not Discriminatory: Rajasthan HC
Title: Surendra Choudhary & Ors. v Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that distributing the marks of deleted questions proportionately in the remaining questions of the same subject does not discriminate between candidates since it could not be preempted which question shall be deleted and the disputed questions had been deleted for all aspirants.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the methodology adopted by the respondents in proportionately distributing the marks of deleted questions in the same subject did not make any discrimination between the candidates since it could not be pre-empted which question would be deleted. Hence, the system adopted was just, fair and impartial.
'Unjust Inclusion In Chargesheet': Rajasthan HC Quashes Corruption Case Against Development Officer's 100 Yrs Old Father, 96 Yrs Old Mother
Title: Ram Lal Patidar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a decade old charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a man's 100-year-old father, 96-year-old mother and wife after noting that no significant evidence had been brought out against them by the prosecution in last 10 years, and that they were included in the charge sheet in an unjust manner.
Taking note of the parents old age, single bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed, "Moreover, petitioners No. 2 (father) and No. 3 (mother) are senior citizens, aged 100 and 96 years, respectively. Their advanced age and frail health make their continued involvement in this prolonged trial highly unjust and inappropriate. The burden of the trial on individuals of such advanced age who are not central to the allegations against petitioner No. 1 (primary accused) makes out a case of quashing their involvement in the case on compassionate ground if nothing else, which seems to be a reasonable ground, given that they are, really speaking, not the accused but merely name lenders to their son, if at all".
Denying 10-Yrs Passport Validity To Undertrial Lacks Statutory Backing, Undermines Presumption Of Innocence: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Abhayjeet Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Rajasthan High Court ruled that reducing the validity period of passport from prescribed 10 years to only 1 year for an under-trial person without cogent reasons amounts to arbitrary restriction on the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 and was violative of principles of justice, equity and fairness.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga also pointed out the absence of any such provision of reducing passport's validity period for under-trial individuals, under the Passport Act, 1967 or the Rules, and held that the act of the State Government lacked any statutory backing and was violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Rajasthan HC Consolidates 259 FIRs Against Sanjivani Group Chairman, Says Process Became Punishment Due To Violation Of Right To Speedy Trial
Title: Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, to consolidate 259 FIRs filed against the chairperson of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society (“Petitioner”) into different bunches based on the geographical locations of these FIRs and observed that in light of these many cases, the Petitioner was being shunted from one place to another without having any fair opportunity to fight his cases which was violative his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further stated that even though it was aware of the potential inconvenience that such transferring of cases would cause to different complainants. when such inconvenience was compared to the right of the accused to be able to defend more than 250 cases properly, the scales of justice inclined in favour of the right of the accused.
Rajasthan HC Quashes Censure Order Against Govt School Teacher For Substandard Class 8 Results, Finds No Specific Allegation Against Him
Title: Azhar Javed v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 259
Granting relief to a government school teacher, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of censure passed against him over the result of Class 8 Board Examination in the concerned school being below the standard set by Department of Education.
Referring to decisions of the high court on the issue, a single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that in the instant case there was no allegation that the result of the concerned school was lowered down "due to commission or omission" on the part of the petitioner teacher.
Reducing Grant Of Aided Institutions Affects Students' Education, Requires Adhering To Natural Justice Principles: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Managing Committee Seth Motilal (P.G.) College, Ranisati Road, Jhunjhunu v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that Section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act–which states that grant in aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right by institutions and can be halted anytime by the state–comes into play only at the initial stage when the aid gets sanctioned.
A single judge bench of Justice Avneesh Jhinghan in its order said, "Section 7(1) provides that no aid shall be claimed by the institution as a matter of right. This provision shall come into play at initial stage of sanctioning of the aid. Once aid is granted, for changing the category or suspension or reduction or stopping of aid, procedure prescribed has to be followed. The change of category and reduction of the grant-in-aid has civil consequences and effect the education of students of institution. It is settled law that even while passing administrative order having civil consequences, the reasons are not only to be recorded but are to be supplied to the affected parties".
Suppressing Pending Criminal Case Ground To Deny Employment Irrespective Of Gravity Of Charges: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Satyanarayan Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
Rajasthan High Court denied relief to a rejected candidate for the post of a primary school teacher (“petitioner”) on the grounds of not disclosing the fact of a pending criminal case against him in the application form as well as filing a false self-declaration form to that effect.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held that the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner was accused of was not relevant but suppression of the material fact was itself a ground to deny the employment. It was opined that since the post in question was that of a primary school teacher, the conduct and character of the employee became more relevant and important.
No Encroachment Can Be Permitted On Govt Or Forest Land On Grounds Of "Religious Feelings": Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors., connected with Shri Shantinath Digamber Jain Atishay Shetra v the Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petition filed by Shri Shantinath Digamber Jain Atishay Shetra seeking regularisation of the possession of ghair-mumkin pahad forest land, in their favour claiming that the centuries-old statues of Lord Mahaveer Swamy and Lord Parshwanath were unearthed from the land and thus as per the Jain scriptures, it was a holy place on which the statues needed to be protected by raising construction.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that no encroachment could be allowed upon the forest land on the grounds of unsubstantiated religious feelings. It was held that the Shetra did not mention the date on which or even the khasra number from which the statues were unearthed. They entered and dug up the forest land without taking any permission from the concerned authorities.
Failure To Name Arbitrator In Legal Notice Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Invocation: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati has held that the invocation of an arbitration clause, which required the Applicant to name an Arbitrator, is valid under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even without naming an arbitrator in the legal notice, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement is prima facie established. The Court reiterated the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration matters.
Safeguard U/S 50 NDPS Act Pertaining To Manner Of Search Crucial In Protecting Individual From Coercive Police Action: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ganpat Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
While granting bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for non compliance of Section 50 by the police while conducting search, the Rajasthan High Court said that the safeguard provided under the section is significant in protecting a person from coercive police action.
Referring to the provision a single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni in its order observed, "Section 50 ensures that the accused is made aware of his rights regarding the manner of the search. According to this section, before conducting a personal search, the accused must be informed of his right to opt for the search to be conducted either in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. This safeguard is crucial to protect the rights of individuals and prevent arbitrary or coercive actions by the police".
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Can Review Its Order If Obtained Through Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Abhilash v the New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
Rajasthan High Courtruled that even though a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) does not have the power to review its own order under CPC if it is convinced that an order passed by it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, it is empowered to recall the order via a review of that order.
A bench of Justice Rekha Borana highlighted the Tribunal's reference to the Apex Court case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. in which it was ruled that,
“An order obtained by practising or playing fraud cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non existent, non est and cannot be allowed to stand. The Court further observed that the said is a fundamental principle of law and hence, held that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud is to be treated as nullity, whether by the Court of first instance or by the final Court.”
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Husband Noting That His Extra-Marital Affair Would 'Per Se' Not Attract Abetment Of Wife's Suicide
Title: Meghraj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
While granting bail to a man accused of abetting his wife's suicide, the Rajasthan High Court observed that solely because a husband was involved in an extra-marital relationship and there was some suspicion in the wife's mind, cannot be regarded as abetment under Section 306 IPC.
After considering the facts of the case, a single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni said, "This Court is of the opinion that no doubt there is some evidence about the illicit relationship of husband of deceased but in the absence of some other acceptable prima facie evidence on record, the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, which includes abetment to drive a woman to commit suicide, could not be found prima facie satisfied.
Mere Failure To Repay Loan Not Cheating Or Criminal Breach Of Trust: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Madanlal Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that no criminal case for breach of trust (Section 405, IPC) and/or cheating (Section 415, IPC) lies against someone who failed to repay loan amount, in absence of any other fact for attracting the offences.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni held that mere breach of promise, agreement or contract did not ipso facto constituted the offence of criminal breach of trust under IPC without there being a case of entrustment which did not happen by simply lending money as loan. Hence, the offence of criminal breach of trust was not attracted.
On the count of Cheating, Court observed that mere inability of the petitioner to return the loan amount simpliciter could not fulfil the ingredients of this offence until fraudulent or dishonest intention was shown since the beginning of the transaction that resulted in involuntary transfer of money by the complainant.
Deadly Weapons Not Necessary To Commit Murder: Rajasthan HC Rejects Bail Of Accused Who Fatally Injured Deceased Using 'Safety Shoes'
Title: Vikas v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that it is not always necessary for the accused to use a deadly weapon or to attack upon the vital body parts like the head, to commit murder, While dismissing the bail application for a murder accused, it was observed that even safety shoes, when used as a weapon, can significantly increase the potential for inflicting serious or fatal injuries.
The Court held that the accused had prima facie intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to the deceased by kicking him with safety shoes which met the mens rea requirement for murder. Hence, the Court found the accused not suitable to be granted bail.
Rajasthan High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Teacher Accused Of Forging Records, Says He Was 'Trusted To Act Honestly'
Title: Banshi Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a government teacher (“petitioner”) who was accused of creating fake documents and observed that irrespective of the fact that the documents did not fetch any direct advantage to the petitioner or seemed harmful, the act in itself was considered as an offence since the intent to deceive was enough to establish the criminal guilt.
Trial Courts Not Mentioning Date Of Arrest Of Accused In Bail Order A "Significant Oversight": Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kamal Kishore v State of Rajasthan and other petition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
Rajasthan High Court criticized a "commonly observed" practice of Trial Courts in not mentioning the date of arrest of the accused while deciding the fate of their bail applications.
In the case at hand, bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was dealing with an order rejecting bail of the petitioners in an NDPS case, opining it as being passed in a causal manner for not mentioning the date of his arrest.
It observed,
“The date of arrest of accused is an integral and crucial part of a bail order but the Presiding Officer did not consider it appropriate to mention it in the order rejecting the bail. This omission is significant oversight.”
Title: Braj Mohan Singh Bareth v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that to exercise the powers under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1950, (“the Rules”) the punishing authority cannot merely rely upon the findings of the enquiry officer but is obliged to record a finding clearly mentioning the circumstances that led to his/her satisfaction that the act of the accused constituted grave misconduct or grave negligence.
“The competent authority is obliged in the spirit of the law to record a finding based on material attending circumstances to come to a definite conclusion on consideration which are not extraneous in nature but relevant to the case that the case partakes the nature of grave misconduct or grave negligence and not limited to an ordinary case of misconduct or negligence.”
[Land Revenue Act] Recovery Was Initiated Without Any Order Recalling Subsidy For Being Wrongly Granted: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Proceedings
Title: India Image v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan at the Rajasthan High Court set aside a recovery notice issued by the State Government under the Land Revenue Act to the petitioner for recovering the amount of wrongly issued subsidy observing that the recovery proceedings were initiated directly without there being any order passed for recalling the subsidy, solely based on the objection raised by the auditors towards granting of the subsidy.
Can ST Women Without Dissolution Decree Be Considered Under ST (Divorcee) Category For Public Employment: Rajasthan HC Refers To Larger Bench
Title: Manju Bai Meena v The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other related petition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Faced with a situation of two conflicting decisions by two division benches, the single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court referred the question of whether a Scheduled Tribe woman can be considered for appointment for a government post under the divorcee category without having decree of dissolution from the competent court before the last date of submission of the application form, to a larger bench.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in which it was held that a bench of lesser quorum could not doubt the correctness of the view taken by a bench of larger quorum and in case of any doubt, it could invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter to be placed for hearing before a bench of larger quorum than the bench whose decision was into consideration.
33 Years Later, Rajasthan High Court Sentences Husband To Life Imprisonment For Wife's Murder; Sets Aside Acquittal Order
Title: State of Rajasthan v Angrey Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
While overturning a decision acquitting a man accused of murdering his first wife, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the trial court in its 1992 order had ignored the testimonies of the eyewitnesses due to minor contradictions as well as corroborative evidence, which was a patent error in law.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said, "This Court also observes that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal had clearly ignored the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, merely on count of some minor contradictions therein, and also ignored the other corroborative evidence produced on record by the prosecution, which is nothing but a patent error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal. This Court further observes that on the basis of evidence and material available on record, there could have been no other view in the present case, other than the one of convicting the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC".
Rajasthan HC Upholds 33-Year-Old Conviction For Culpable Homicide Not Murder But Orders Release Of Convicts Citing Their "Long Ordeal"
Title: Panna Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
While upholding a 33-year-old order convicting four men for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reduced their seven year sentence to period already undergone in prison observing that they had to pass through a long ordeal both mentally and financially.
A single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in its September 19 judgment said, "The appellants have undergone the imprisonment from 03.10.1990 to 15.06.1991 during investigation and trial and remained in jail after conviction w.e.f. 07.12.1991 till 18.01.1992. The occurrence took place more than three and a half decade back and at the time of occurrence the age of the appellants was approximately 19-20 years. The appellants had to pass through this long ordeal for above 34 years, mentally and financially".
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Bail Cancellation, Proclamation Proceedings And Action Against Surety U/S 446 CrPC In Rash Driving Case
Title: Visha Bhai v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
Reiterating that trial court's discretion to cancel bail must be preceded with a notice to the accused to defend themselves, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside an order cancelling a man's bail which also declared him an "absconder" in a rash driving case.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga set aside a magisterial court's order which had further directed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Cr.PC Sections 82 and 83 and under Section 446 against his surety separately.
Can't Expect State To Immediately Inquire Into Removal Of Municipality's Members, Without Looking At Facts: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Narendra Kumar Khodaniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that when several complaints are filed against elected representatives, then State cant be expected to immediately commence inquiry to remove members of a municipal authority under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act without ascertaining the facts first.
A single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta in its order said, "According to this Court, in the present day scenario, when a host of complaints are being filed against elected representatives, State cannot be expected to straightaway launch an inquiry under section 39(1) of the Act of 2009 and engage its officers for conducting the inquiry without first ascertaining the facts. In order to avert unnecessary exercise and to ward off frivolous complaints, if the State Government has got done a fact finding exercise through the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, it cannot be said that the same is void or without authority of law".
Rajasthan HC Expands Scope of Section 95 BNSS To Include Telecom, Service Providers For Compelling Production Of Material Relevant To Trial
Title: Mala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a murder accused's plea under Section 94 BNSS by treating it as one filed under Section 95 BNSS, thereby expanding the provision's (Section 95) scope in the peculiar facts of the case and directed the trial court to obtain the call and location details of the witnesses in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed that Section 94 of BNSS can be invoked only either at the instance of the court or the officer in-charge of the police station, who in a given situation, may consider any document to be produced for the benefit of the Court.
'Cannot Be Taken Lightly': Rajasthan HC Takes Exception To Party's Concealment Of Coordinate Bench Order, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost
Title: Indira Education Institute of Nursing v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on a petitioner for concealing an order passed by a coordinate bench of the Court in the petitioner's other writ petition with similar prayers and filing the current petition in violation of the earlier order.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined,
“Filing of the present writ petition is therefore, clearly in defiance of the earlier order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. And then, non-disclosure of earlier writ petition and not bringing the said order to the notice of the Court is like adding fuel to fire - it cannot be taken lightly.”
Mere Filing Of FIR/Chargsheet Not Enough To Reject Candidature, Each Case Must Be Examined To Determine Involvement Of Moral Turpitude: Rajasthan HC
Title: Dana Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Setting aside the rejection of the candidature of a meritorious candidate for the post of a government teacher, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that in the event of filing of a criminal complaint against the candidate, the Government is required to scrutinize the matter considering the facts involved to reach a decision, whether the act done by the candidate involved moral turpitude that would disentitle the candidate for the appointment.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that not every FIR or even conviction would itself involve a refusal of a certificate of good character or consequent disqualification.
Disciplinary Authority "Coerced" By Chief Vigilance Officer: Rajasthan High Court While Reversing SBI Branch Manager's Removal From Service
Title: Vaibhav Singh v State Bank of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
While quashing an order of the SBI's disciplinary authority removing a branch manager for alleged misconduct, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the authority altered its punishment from "lowering of scale" to "removal of service" on the advice and "coercion" by the concerned Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that the disciplinary authority had "kneeled down" before the CVO going against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue, adding that no copy of CVO's communication/advice to the authority was given to the petitioner branch manager amounting to violation of principles of natural justice.
FIR For Offences Committed Before July 1 2024 To Be Lodged Under IPC Even After Enforcement Of BNS: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Vijay Sharma & Others Vs State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that for a crime committed before July 1, 2024—the date when three new criminal laws came into effect—if an FIR is filed on or after July 1, the provisions/offences of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will have to be invoked, and in such cases, the offences outlined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) will not apply.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga, however, clarified that for such FIRs lodged after July 1, 2024, for offences under the IPC (as crime committed before July 1), the applicable procedure should be as prescribed in the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and not the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).