Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 27 To July 3, 2022

Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

Judgments Orders of the Week

1. No Criminal Action Against Advocate If Legal Advice Goes Wrong, Liable For Professional Misconduct If Established By Cogent Evidence: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. At most, he may be held liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing cogent evidence on record.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed, " If any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. As observed above, an Advocate, at the most, may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing a cogent evidence on record, but an Advocate cannot be charged for the offences, as alleged herein, alongwith other conspirators."

The Bench was of the view that if an Advocate is prosecuted merely for rendering a legal advice/opinion, it shall not be possible for any lawyer to render such professional advice, more particularly, when such a professional advice, if found to be non favourable for the client, the same would result into criminal prosecution against a lawyer, and in such circumstances, the system of justice delivery would suffer, as lawyers being an important component of the justice delivery system would not be able to give their professional advice without fear and favour.

2. "Placement Of Statues & Free Flow Of Traffic Are Matters Looked Into By State": Rajasthan HC Disposes PIL For Removal Of BR Ambedkar Statue

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

While hearing a PIL for removal of statue of Shri Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar allegedly causing obstruction, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the court.

The court opined that the petitioners have chosen only a particular spot in the city rather than coming out with general prayer for removal of unauthorised statues in the city. The court remarked that the petition appears to be only for personal interest, not for public interest. Further, the court directed the Local Body concerned to decide the issue as soon as possible.

Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while disposing the petition, observed, "The Local Body concerned should decide the issue as soon as possible. The placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the Court. In view of above, we direct the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to examine the whole matter afresh after going through the material on record and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as possible."

3. Protection Plea: Rajasthan High Court Permits Police To Charge Married Couple If It Has Adequate Income

Case Title: Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

While hearing a protection petition filed by a married couple, the vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that if the petitioner's income is more than taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate financial charges from them.

Essentially, the petitioners got married on 22.03.2022. However, this marriage was not approved by their relatives and respondents No. 4 to 14 and fearing them, they had filed a petition seeking police protection at their residence and place of work.

The court asked the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and added that it would be the duty of the said authority to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, for which he may take such suitable measures as found necessary in accordance with law.

4. Court Can't Dictate Exam Dates: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Interfere With Lab Assistant Exam Schedule

Case Title: Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the High Court cannot direct the authorities as to when and on which date a particular examination is to be conducted.

Essentially, the petitioners alleged that the date of examination for the recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant which is going to be conducted on 28.06.2002 and 29.06.2022 is clashing with certain other examinations. Additionally, the petition sought that the candidates be allowed sufficient time for preparation of the examination because, as per the petitioner, the syllabus for Lab Assistant examination has been amended and in place of the earlier short syllabus, a lengthy syllabus comprising many new topics has been introduced.

The court observed that all the recruitment examinations as well as graduation examinations are not conducted for a single person or a specific group of people. These are the examinations for which an advance time table is prepared by the concerned department and are conducted after months of prior preparation, added the court.

5. Whether Prevention Of Corruption Act Can Be Invoked Against A Private Person Alone Requires Consideration: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To CA

Case Title: Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

The Rajasthan High Court has said that whether or not the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked against a private person is a question that requires consideration.

Observing thus, it granted bail to a Chartered Accountant, who it held is not a public servant, booked under the Act after recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Essentially, the applicant-petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan for the offence(s) under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC. On account of certain reasons, he was allegedly removed from the services of the complainant, who was his client. The applicant-petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to vindictiveness of the complainant.

6. High Court Not Bound To Invite Bar's Views While Deciding Criminal Reference U/S 395 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Section 395 of CrPC, which makes provision for criminal reference, does not obligate the court to invite the views of the members of the Bar before answering such reference and that notifying the members of the Bar regarding same is purely the discretion of the court to be exercised as a matter of prudence.

The court clarified that such a course of action is adopted just in order to seek independent views from the members of the bar for the assistance of the court.

As per Section 395 (1) CrPC, a reference involving validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained therein can be referred to the High Court by a court subordinate to it and the referral court would then be required to answer the reference.

Also Read: Application Cast Serious Aspersions On Court, Riddled With Language Errors: Rajasthan High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Advocate

7. [Order XVI Rule 1&2 CPC] Trial Court Required To Ascertain Only "Prima-Facie" Relevancy Of Proposed Witnesses: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that trial Court is required to prima-facie ascertain the relevancy and requirement of the proposed witnesses while deciding an application for summoning of witnesses in terms of Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court however made it clear that the applicant may be called upon only to show the relevance or need of such witness(es) but he/ she cannot be asked to establish or prove such requirement; The requirement has to be determined by the Court.

Order XVI Rule (1) and (2) of the CPC in unequivocal terms provide that the court suo moto or on an application, can issue summons to a witness to appear in the court. Further, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Order XVI enjoins upon the party desirous of getting a summon issued to a witness to state in its application the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned.

Other Important Updates

1. Asaram Bapu Rape Case: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Status Of Trial For Similar Offences In Gujarat

Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan

While hearing the third application filed by self-styled godman & life convict Asaram Bapu seeking suspension of sentence for rape of a minor, the Rajasthan High Court has sought a status report on the progress of trial pending against the octogenarian for similar offences in Gujarat.

A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur directed both the Public Prosecutor and Asaram's counsel to apprise the Court of the progress so far.

"Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the appellant shall apprise the Court about the status of the trial which is going on against the accused appellant in the State of Gujarat for similar offences."

This is significant in view of the fact that the High Court had earlier refused his plea for temporary suspension of sentence stating that the same would be futile on account of the cases pending against him in Gujarat.

2. Udaipur Murder : Centre Asks NIA To Take Over Investigation; International Links To Be Probed

The Central Government has directed the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation of the gruesome murder of a tailor named Kanhaiya Lal Teli at Udaipur yesterday.

"MHA(Ministry of Home Affairs) has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation of the brutal murder of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Teli committed at Udaipur, Rajasthan yesterday. The involvement of any organisation and international links will be thoroughly investigated", the Union Home Minister's Office tweeted today morning.

3. Udaipur Killings | National Investigation Authority Re-Registers Case Against Two Accused

The National Investigation Agency of India has re-registered case against accused who conspired, planned and committed the heinous murder of Shri Kanahiya Lal Telli on 28.06.2022 in Udaipur, Rajasthan.

The case has been re-registered under sections 452, 302, 153(A), 153(B), 295(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 16, 18 & 20 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 against the accused persons.

The Press Release issued by the National Investigation Authority today, states,

"NIA has re-registered a case RC-27/2022/NIA/DLI on 29/06/2022 under under sections 452, 302, 153(A), 153(B), 295(A) & 34 of IPC and sections 16, 18 & 20 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 against the accused who have conspired, planned and committed the heinous murder of Shri Kanahiya Lal Telli on 28.06.2022 in Udaipur, Rajasthan."

4. Udaipur Murder : Court Remands Accused To 14 Days Judicial Custody

The Udaipur Court has sent the two accused involved in Udaipur's heinous murder of the tailor Kanahiya Lal Telli to 14 days judicial custody.

Kanhaiya Lal had received threats earlier for supporting in social media the remarks made by BJP leader Nupur Sharma on Prophet Muhammed. The assailants took a video of the brutal attack. In a video posted later, the attackers said that they carried out the murder to avenge the insult to Islam.