CRLA / 895 / 2014 (OGAD SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2020 Appeal by accused against conviction under Section 302 IPC for murdering his own daughter-Held-Failure by appellant to offer any explanation regarding murder of his daughter in his house and subsequent carrying of her severed head and blood stained sword to police outpost leads to a presumption regarding his culpability for the offence-Statement by accused to police, divulging motive for murder of his daughter was not confessional in nature and therefore, admissible in evidence-Appeal rejected.
2
SAW / 171 / 2020 (PUSHKARLAL VS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MAHARANA PRATAP SMARAK, UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2020 Whether a Pujari falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as services of one pujari was terminated without complying with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act-Held-For determination as to whether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not, test is what is the main work assigned to him-Puja by Pujari is an application of his knowledge which cannot be considered to be work specified in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947, thus, a Pujari is not a workman-Appeal dismissed in limine.
3
CRLW / 94 / 2020 (SHARAWAN MANJI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2020 Writ petition by Petitioner assailing the recommendation of the State Level Parole Advisory Committee rejecting his request for a permanent parole- The High Court relying on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2017 SC 4986, held that mere nature of the offence committed by the convict should not be a factor to deny parole outrightly- Matter remanded back to the State Level Parole Committee for reconsideration- Writ Petition allowed.
4
CRLAD / 325 / 2019 (JASRAJ VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2020 Appellant convicted and sentenced for offences under Sec-498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC-Application for suspension of sentences and appeal against judgment of lower court-High Court relying on Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2014 SC 841 held that-Presiding officer failed to frame a specific charge for offence under Section 302 IPC which was essential-Appeal allowed-Judgment of conviction by lower court set aside and matter remitted back to trial court for fresh decision.
5
CW / 2747 / 2020 (MAHESH JOSHI VS RAMESH PAREKH) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2020 Argument-Power of Attorney based on which proceedings were instituted, neither registered nor bears requisite stamp duty and same is inadmissible in evidence. Held- For Power of Attorney to be compulsorily registrable, it must be irrevocable. Also, any instrument executed out of State relating to any property situated in the State is chargeable to stamp duty when the same is received in the State. Deficient stamp duty and penalty determined by High Court and respondent directed to pay the same.
1
CRLMP / 397 / 2020 (JULFI SINGH S/O SHRI JAWAHAR SINGH B/C GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/10/2020 Petitions relating to prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons-The Hon’ble High Court relied on Asharam and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 2 RLW(Raj) 1624, wherein it was held that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and ought to be released and laid down the conditions before release of the seized vehicles-Thus, Petitions allowed-Vehicles ordered to be released
2
CW / 11435 / 2020 (PRAGYAN BANSAL SON OF SH. D K BANSAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/10/2020 Petitioners undergoing internship as part of their MBBS Course submitted that, they should be declared eligible to participate for the post of Medical Officer-Held-Minimum requirement for a person to practice in Medicine is that they must complete their internship and be registered with the Medical Council permanently-Those who have passed MBBS out of India are eligible when they complete their internship in India and also pass the exam conducted by the Board-Therefore, Writ Petition dismissed.
3
CW / 1078 / 2020 (DR. JAHNVI VIJAY DAUGHTER OF DR. SANDEEP VIJAY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2020 Petition filed seeking direction to cancel NEET (P.G.), 2020 examination, because of defective computers provided at a test center or to give bonus marks to the petitioner- Held, considering the facts, it cannot be inferred that technical failure has resulted into such a situation where the entire examination is required to be redone. The compensatory measures, adopted by respondents, did mitigate the situation, which had arisen due to technical failure- Writ Petition dismissed.
4
CW / 5435 / 2020 (DR. VIDUSHI SAHARAN D/O SH. SATYA PRAKASH SARAN W/O SH. DR. MAHENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2020 Writ petition challenging order by the State requiring three years of regular service from RPSC selected Senior Demonstrators for allotment of PG Medical seats-Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 120 which stated that, if minimum standards are laid down by a Central legislation, the State Governments are competent to prescribe any further qualifications; the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the order of the State.
5
CW / 4330 / 2017 (GUDSINGH VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H E D ANDANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2020 Termination of services of petitioner without compliance of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon’ble High Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 12 SCC 754 reiterated the principle that nonproduction of relevant record will result into drawing adverse inference against the employer in terms of Section 114 Illustration (g) of Evidence Act, 1872. Writ Petition allowed and lump sum compensation paid to petitioner.
