Home
/

High Courts
/

Rajasthan High Court
/
Rajasthan High Court Monthly...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Nupur Agrawal

8 Oct 2024 10:18 AM IST

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

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.”

Sanctioning Authority Must Record Findings Based On Attending Circumstances To Prove Employee's Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

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).

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Nupur Agrawal

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.

Tags