Nominal Index Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134 Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135 Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136 Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137 Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index
Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State's Home Secretary to issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed,
"The Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan shall issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State of Rajasthan to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof in terms of the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2021."
Case Title: Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to Union government to conduct the Census in scheduled timeline, without any further delay and also to declare "wherever it may consider it necessary or desirable to do so" in the Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires.
Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 states that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention of taking a Census in the whole or any part of the territories to which this Act extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do and thereupon the Census shall be taken.
3. Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST
Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner/assessee sought the direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 issued by Respondent/department.
The assessee has sought its representation through an authorised representative is required to be duly considered by the respondents.
The assessee submitted that unless it is absolutely imperative, it is not necessary that in all cases, the petitioner should be insisted for personal appearance and he may be allowed to appear through representative also replying to various queries.
4. Rajasthan High Court Grants 15 Days' Temporary Bail To Convict To Perform Daughter's Kanyadan
Case Title: Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has granted temporary bail for 15 days to a man to perform 'Kanyadan' & other ceremonies in his daughter's marriage.
Notably, the present application for grant of temporary bail has been filed on the ground that the appellant's daughter is getting married on 28.04.2022 and the presence of the appellant is necessary to perform 'Kanyadan' and other ceremonies in the marriage.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled,
"Taking into consideration the ground, on which the temporary bail is sought, we are inclined to allow the application to the extent that the appellant shall be released on temporary bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appellant shall be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of release."
Case Title: Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner is a married brother of the deceased government servant, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
Justice Rekha Borana, while dismissing the writ petition, opined,
"Admittedly, the petitioner is married and therefore, in terms of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment. In view of the specific provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 01.01.2019."
Case Title: M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely depositing an amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment of land in its favour.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while dismissing the writ petition, ruled,
"This Court finds that merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour."
The court observed that the allotment of industrial plots on "first come first serve" basis is not approved in the interest of the respondent-Corporation and as such, the decision cannot be termed arbitrary.
7. Power Of Revision At The State Of Framing Of Charges Is Very Limited: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
The Rajasthan High Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).
The court opined that if a strong suspicion exists in the mind of the court at the stage concerned, then the same is sufficient for the court to proceed with the framing of the charge against the accused person(s). And if a prayer for discharge has been made before a revisional court, then the same may only be allowed if the court finds that the materials on record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial, added the court.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the decision of trial court, ruled,
"This Court, therefore, finds that the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, and that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the Hon'ble High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s). And, as an exception to this, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335"
8. Coins Worth ₹11 Crore Missing From SBI Branch: Rajasthan High Court Transfers Investigation To CBI
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
In a case of 'missing' coins worth Rs. 11 crore from the Mehandipur Balaji branch of State Bank of India (SBI), the Central Bureau has reportedly filed an FIR. The FIR was filed pursuant to the order issued by the Rajasthan High Court whereby, on March 4, 2022, the court had transferred the investigation of the matter to the agency.
As per the reports, an FIR filed by the bank in August 2021 reported a discrepancy in the total value of coins deposited in the bank, and those that were found to be there in an audit conducted by the bank. It was further stated in the FIR that the vendor told the bank that while the audit was underway, one of his employees, who was involved in counting of coins, allegedly had his life threatened by a group of 10-15 armed men.
Notably, the State Bank of India, by way of a criminal writ petition, had approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking direction to the CBI to take over the investigation of the FIR filed in August last year at Police Station Todabhim. It also sought direction to the respondents to pursue the FIR for offence of threat given to the vendor.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
The Rajasthan High Court observed that medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not.
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order passed by trial court, framing charges against the present accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 308, 447, 427, 341, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
Dr, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, ruled,
"Such medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not; the impugned order passed by the learned trial court clearly reveals that the said proposition, amongst others, has been kept into consideration by the learned trial court, and rightly so."
Case Title: Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely because the courts were closed for Holi Holidays, the prosecution cannot get the benefit of filing the charge-sheet after expiry of the period of 60 days or the stipulated period of time mandated by law.
The court noted that it is a settled proposition of law that if the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet is required to be filed within a period of 60 days and the period of 60 days, in no circumstance, can get enlarged.
Essentially, the petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2022 and the 60 days' period came to an end on 19.03.2022 whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 21.03.2022.
Case Title: Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
The Rajasthan High Court observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery.
In the present matter, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment under Sections 302 (Murder) and 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) IPC. The appellant urged that he has strong case for assailing the impugned judgment and hence, he deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition as it being devoid of merit,
"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We may state that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery."
12. Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement
Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.
The petitioner, UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., has taken over Binani Cement. The petitioner has filed a revision petition assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, rejecting the applications for a refund of the mandatory statutory obligation pre-deposit with interest made with appeals filed before the Tax Board.
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department issued VAT assessment orders fixing the liability of Binani Cement Limited for different periods ranging from 2005-06 to 2015-16 and also imposed upon it additional tax and interest. These orders were carried by Binani Cement Limited in an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur, who dismissed it by separate orders. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, Binani Cement Limited preferred appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner/assessee has filed the writ petition challenging the demand GST on the royalty paid on account of excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner has submitted that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the royalty is separate and distinct from the land revenue and it is not related to the land as a unit. As such, no tax is to be paid upon the royalty.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Ram Prakash Singh v. The Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice to Centre on a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 inasmuch as it does not provide benefit of reservation to the persons with disability of Haemophilia .
Haemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by congenital deficiency of certain clotting factors.
The petitioner also sought direction to the respondent authorities to include persons with disability of Haemophilia under section 34 and provide reservation under every government establishment to them. Additionally, the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to give 'benefit of reservation' in employment to him as he is a Haemophilia disabled person with benchmark disability.
Section 34 of the Act provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4 percent of the total number of vacancies filled with persons with benchmark disabilities, of which, 1 percent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities of blindness and low vision; deaf and hard of hearing; locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; and 1 percent for persons with benchmark disabilities Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; Multiple disabilities.