CRLMP / 7213 / 2022 (ABDUL SATTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, alleging illegal medical practice. HELD: Offences are non-cognizable and bailable; FIR registered without prior approval from Magistrate violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Violation of principles of natural justice as FIR was lodged without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Petition allowed.
2
CW / 2899 / 2024 (M/S GRAIN ENERGY PVT. LTD. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the rejection of a refund claim for interest paid due to technical glitches in the Customs ECL system. HELD: Refund denial was inconsistent with Section 27 and Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. Technical issues persisted until 27.07.2023, as certified by D.G. Systems. Impugned order dated 21.11.2023 quashed; respondents directed to refund the interest amount within three months. Petition allowed.
3
CRLMP / 5484 / 2024 (IRFAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the order rejecting his request for a fresh forensic sample from the seized contraband in an NDPS case. HELD: The trial court's refusal violated principles of fair trial. In ensuring a fresh forensic examination, the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond doubt is more effectively discharged. A fresh 10g sample to be drawn under judicial supervision and sent to FSL. The FSL directed to submit the report within 30 days. Impugned order quashed. Petition allowed.
4
CRLMP / 9230 / 2024 (JEETMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/01/2025 Petitioners challenged dismissal of their criminal appeal for non-prosecution. HELD: Dismissal solely on the grounds of the appellant's or their counsel's non-appearance constitutes a profound miscarriage of justice. Appellate Courts are duty bound to adjudicate criminal appeals on their intrinsic merit, irrespective of the presence or absence of the appellant or their LR. Dismissal of Appeal not in consonance with settled principles of law. Petition allowed.
5
CRLMP / 261 / 2025 (KAMLESH SANKHALA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2025 Pet. assailing the order passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, dismissing the criminal revision petition. HELD: The ld. Sessions Judge confined his scrutiny to the narrow confines of the delay condonation application. Dismissal of revision petition on procedural grounds, without meticulous examination of the contentions raised, constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Procedural rules are handmaid of justice, not its mistress. Petition allowed.
1
CMA / 4796 / 2024 (DIMPLE W/O RAVINDRA MEENA D/O PRITAM SINGH MEENA VS RAVINDRA MEENA S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2025 Appellant challenged the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, claiming physical abuse and dowry harassment. Claims that she was willing to return. HELD: Allegations were unproven, no police complaint or medical certificate was produced. No evidence showed that the respondent obstructed reconciliation. If the appellant is ready to join company of her husband, there is no occasion to challenge the judgment. No legal error in the decree. Appeal Dismissed.
2
CW / 14730 / 2022 (BLM COLLEGE OF NURSING VS INCOME TAX OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of a reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, citing a lack of reasoning in the order. HELD: The order was non-speaking and failed to consider objections. Principles of natural justice require a reasoned decision. Order set aside; case remanded for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing. Petition Allowed.
3
CW / 17565 / 2022 (ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL VS ARVIND BHANDARI S/O SH. ROOP SINGH BHANDARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the tribunal order by which the termination order was set aside. HELD: The termination of any employee of a recognized institution can be passed only after holding departmental enquiry & with prior permission of Director of Education as per Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993.Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order of the respondent. Petitioner directed to reinstate the respondent. Tribunal order upheld.
4
CRLMB / 164 / 2025 (DHEERAJ SINGH PARMAR S/O BASANT SINGH PARMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2025 Petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case, arguing wrongful implication and procedural lapses. HELD: Seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act. FSL report confirmed methamphetamine (24.75g), below commercial quantity (50g). FSL report is the most important thing in an NDPS case. Investigation should be completed within 60 days; further custody is unlawful. Bail granted with conditions. Petition Allowed.
5
CW / 2003 / 2024 (SUNIL DATTATREY S/O SHRI G.P. DATTATREY RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2025 Petitioner challenged non-payment of salary despite Tribunal orders. HELD: Right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Non-payment amounts to 'Begar,' prohibited under Article 23. Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. Withholding salary violates Articles 21, 23, and 300-A. Respondents directed to release salary within one month, failing which contempt proceedings would follow. Compliance to be monitored.
6
CRLA / 38 / 2016 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by the Special Court of ACD Cases, Alwar, convicting him u/s 7 & 13(2) rw S. 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. HELD: Accused convicted merely on the basis of alleged recovery of certain currency notes, without there being any cogent evidence as regards the demands and acceptance. In absence of such evidence, conviction and sentence cannot be said to be justified. Appeal allowed.
