Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: March 21 To March 27, 2022

Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

Smt Meena v. State, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

T.C. Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. [Habeas Corpus] Rajasthan High Court Directs UIDAI To Share Aadhar Details of Suspect & Minor Girl With Investigation Officer Within 7 Days For Tracing

Case Title: Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court directed UIDAI officials to expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and a minor child to the Investigating Officer.

The court further directed that the aforesaid details shall be shared within seven days.

Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,

"We, therefore, direct that the UIDAI officials shall expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and the corpus to the Investigating Officer and same shall be shared latest within seven days from today. "

2. Section 459 IPC Applies If Trespasser Causes Grievous Hurt Or Attempts To Cause Death Or Hurt While Trespassing: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Smt Meena v. State, Through PP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 459 of Indian Penal Code would apply if a trespasser causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt in the course of the trespass i.e. whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the petition, modified the trial court's order (for the offence U/s 458, 323, 324, 325, 307/34) to the extent of framing of charges under Section 459 IPC in place of Section 458 IPC and thereby, observed,

"In this case, the accused-respondents illegal and forcibly entered the house of the complainant/petitioner, armed with lathis, sariyas and swords during night hours at about 10:15 p.m. on 31.09.2016, and inflicted grievous injuries upon the son and husband of the complainant/petitioner, while remaining in her house premises. The same constitutes house breaking, and the grievous hurt is not disputed, and thus, the applicability of Section 459 IPC is made out."

3. Trial Of Salman Khan's Deer Hunting Case Transferred To Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed Salman Khan's transfer petition in the deer hunting case. The petitioner prayed for transfer of the criminal appeals and Arms Act appeal from the Sessions Court, primarily on the ground that they arose from the same judgment and set of facts and evidence, involving several common witnesses and overlapping allegations as in the Leave to appeal filed by the state in the High Court.

The transfer petition was filed under Sections 402 and 407 of The Criminal Procedure Code, and Rule 113 of The Rajasthan High Court Rules.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed,

"Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, it is directed that criminal appeal No.18/2018 filed by complainant Punamchand relating to alleged offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 relating to alleged offence under Arms Act, 1956, both pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District shall be transferred to this Hon'ble High Court, to be heard alongwith the Criminal Leave to Appeal No.311/2018 (State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & Ors.)."

4. Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Judge Jitendra Singh Guliya & 2 Judicial Clerks Booked On Charges of Sexually Assaulting A Minor Boy

Case Title: Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to judicial officer Jitendra Singh Guliya and two judicial clerks. All the three accused are in custody for the offences punishable under section 377/34 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.

Last year, the Rajasthan High Court suspended Jitendra Singh Guliya, with immediate effect pending preliminary enquiry and contemplated departmental enquiry. An order to this effect was issued by the High Court's Registrar General, under the direction of the Chief Justice of the High Court. He was posted as Special Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur.

Justice Farjand Ali, while granting bail to the accused persons, observed,

"All the accused persons are government servants out of which one is a Judicial officer and if the pre-conviction detention does not lead to conviction then compensation for such detention whereby tarnishing the reputation of an individual holding a Judicial post will never be compensated. Thus, the detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive; and for the reasons as noted above this court is of the considered view that since the accused is languishing in judicial custody, his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose."

5. Civil Suit Maintainable Against Termination Of Probationer If No Enquiry Conducted Before Removal: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the services of a regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explaining the charges against him.

The court pursued that the fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law. In this regard, the court noted that the nature of termination in the present matter was stigmatic.

Previously, the court had framed the substantial question of law as "Whether, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff?".

Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,

"As far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic. The services of regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explain the charges against him. The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less substantial question of law."

6. Additional Evidence Not Required To Prove Certified Copies Of Judgments: Rajasthan HC Allows Application Under Order XLI Rule 27

Case Title: Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC observed that no additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, when the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts.

Justice Sudesh Bansal, opined,

"In the opinion of this court, copies of judgment dated 04.09.2006 and order dated 23.07.2012, have material bearing on issues involved in the present appeal. No additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, as the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts. Thus, in the interest of justice, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed."

7. 'Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice': Rajasthan HC Raps State For Discontinuing Water Facilities For Irrigation

Case Title: Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the decision of state government discontinuing water facilities through siphons is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners, who used the supply for irrigating their fields since last 35 years.

The court opined that the impugned orders are having civil and evil consequences, and are therefore not sustainable in the eye of the law.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned orders, observed,

"In the considered opinion of this court, the action taken by the respondents authorities is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the orders which are having civil and evil consequences, and, therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eye of the law."

8. 'Grave Misconduct': Rajasthan HC Imposes 1 Lac Cost On Advocate Who Filed Original Application Without Authorization, Superimposed Sign By Xerox Machine Etc.

Case Title: T.C. Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur order imposing 1 Lac cost on petitioner-advocate.

The court observed that the petitioner-advocate, who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc. without having been specifically authorised in this regard by the litigants.

It was opined by the court that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner, who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial proceedings cannot be faulted.

Other Important Updates

1. Rajasthan Bar Protests Against State's Failure To Trace Advocate's Missing Daughters

The Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur along with District Bar Association, Jaipur protested against state administration's failure to find two minor daughters of an Advocate, who have been missing for over 45 days.

Two minor daughters of Jaipur-based Advocate Avdesh Kumar Purohit have been missing from Lai C. M. Senior Secondary School, Kartarpura, Jaipur since Feb 3, 2022. An FIR was also lodged on the same day. The last location of the minor girls was reported in Lucknow.

The Rajasthan High Court Bar Association has decided to offer a cash reward of Rs. 51,000 to the person who gives information about the girls.

2. Difficulty In Getting Only Mother's Name As Legal Guardian On PAN & Other Documents: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance

Case Title: Suo Moto v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently taken suo moto cognizance considering the difficulty faced by an individual in getting only his mother's name as legal guardian on PAN and other documents.

The suo moto cognizance was taken by Justice Sameer Jain based on a report published in The Hindu on 08.03.2022 titled, "Want Mother's Name on Documents? Get ready for the runaround". The case was registered on Court's file on the International Women's Day i.e. 08.03.2022 and was thereby placed before the division bench of the High Court.

On 10.03.2022, the division bench granted three weeks' time to both Union and State government to file an affidavit indicating as to where and in what departments the names of mothers are mentioned and used as a practice.

Advocate Divyesh Maheshwari was appointed as amicus curiae by the court.

3. TDS On Cash Withdrawals Exceeding ₹1 Crore: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Constitutionality Of S.194N Income Tax Act

Case Title: Abhay Singla v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently issued notice in a public interest litigation challenging the constitutionality of Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 and became effective from September 1, 2019. The provision mandates the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 2% on cash withdrawals from, inter alia, a banking company exceeding Rs. 1 crore in a financial year.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,

"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. PF be filed within one week."

4. Rajasthan High Court Directs State To 'Intensify' Action To Trace Advocate's Missing Daughters, Govt Constitutes SIT

Case Title: Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court was informed by the state that the case of advocate's missing daughters has been transferred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The court was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Jaipur-based Advocate Avdesh Kumar Purohit, whose two minor daughters have been missing from Lai C. M. Senior Secondary School, Kartarpura, Jaipur since Feb 3, 2022. An FIR was also lodged on the same day. The last location of the minor girls was reported in Lucknow.

The court pursued that positive steps are being taken to trace out the detenues and it directed the respondents to intensify the action in this regard.

Justice Prakash Gupta and Justice Birendra Kumar, observed,

"From perusal of the same, it appears that positive steps have been taken to trace out the detenues, who are yet to be traced. The respondents are directed to intensify the action to trace out the detenues."