The Rajasthan High Court modified a 2007 trial court judgment so that the petitioner's acquittal is recorded as a clean acquittal rather than one on the benefit of the doubt (para 8). The benefit of the doubt applies only where some prosecution evidence exists but is unreliable or insufficient; where there is a total lack of evidence, the acquittal is clean, since a wrong label can imply the charges had some merit (paras 6-7).
Finding food laws descriptive but poorly implemented, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of food adulteration on 01.07.2024 (paras 12, 14) and issued interim directions on sampling, laboratories, review committees, complaints and public awareness (para 15). On 05.08.2024 a Division Bench found those directions final in nature and discontinued them. The petition, since widened to milk adulteration and effluent treatment, was pending in October 2026.
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a police constable's dismissal ordered without any inquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, holding the use of that power illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The allegation that he used objectionable language on a phone call could be proved only after an inquiry, and the reasons for dispensing with it were disclosed neither in the order nor to the Court (para 15).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a Lok Adalat has no power to dismiss a case referred to it for default of appearance (para 7). Under Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, when no compromise or settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must return the record to the court that made the reference, for disposal in accordance with law (paras 3-5). The Court set aside a Lok Adalat order of 19.04.2022 and restored the petitioner's criminal revision petition (paras 7-8).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a second bail application in an NCB case in which the prosecution said 215.100 kg of poppy straw and 28.920 kg of opium, a commercial quantity, were recovered (paras 4, 15). The seizure officer had not had the Section 52A proceedings conducted before a Magistrate (para 6), the seizure was prima facie done at a police station (para 12), and the accused had spent almost five years in custody (para 8). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 14).
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail of a murder accused who had obtained it without placing the Section 164 CrPC statements of two last-seen witnesses before the Court, and rejected the bail pleas of two co-accused who relied only on parity with her (paras 22, 30). Parity rests on positive equality, and it cannot be applied as a straitjacket formula where the co-accused got bail without the correct facts and evidence before the Court (paras 25, 29).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal by the Union of India and others against a Single Judge's order that set aside the rejection of a candidate as medically unfit solely because of a scar on the inner aspect of her right forearm (paras 2, 6, 13). Under the 2015 medical guidelines a tattoo disqualifies only in certain conditions of location and size; the scar of a removed tattoo falls outside that clause, and singling it out violates Articles 14 and 16 (paras 10-11).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash cheque-dishonour complaints against four former faculty members of a Kota coaching institute who had given undated cheques as security under their employment contracts. Although no debt existed when the cheques were handed over, the relevant date for a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the NI Act is the date of presentation or maturity (paras 13, 20). Whether the contracts were valid and created liability is a question for trial (para 12).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held that a 1996 acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, although possession was never taken, because compensation had been tendered, refused and deposited in court, which satisfies Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act as read in Indore Development Authority. The landowners had also suppressed the tender and their own request for developed plots. The Single Judge's order was set aside, but the offered plots were directed to be allotted (paras 32-38).
The Rajasthan High Court acquitted a man jailed for life for his brother’s murder, holding that the circumstantial evidence failed the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda tests (paras 117, 120). Being seen strolling outside the deceased’s house the night before is not ‘last seen’ evidence (paras 75, 84), an admission made in police custody is not an extra-judicial confession (para 90), and strained relations raise suspicion, not proof of motive (para 95).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the authorities could not, for no plausible reason, drop the one Lecturer, Music (Vocal) post reserved for blind or low-vision candidates while keeping similar reservations for other posts (para 8). A vocal-music teacher needs his vocal cords, not his sight, the Court said (paras 6-7). It allowed a visually impaired teacher's writ petition and directed that his sealed result be opened and acted on, if he is found meritorious (paras 9-11).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an appellate judgment that had acquitted a cheque drawer only because the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed before the fifteen-day payment period expired. Following Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey and Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, it held that such a complaint cannot be taken cognizance of, but the payee may file a fresh complaint, with the delay treated as condoned (paras 13-14, 21).