The Rajasthan High Court held that a complainant-victim who alleges that the police recorded his Section 161 CrPC statement wrongly cannot go straight to a Magistrate to have his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Following Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa, it held that a Magistrate has no power to record the statement of a person not sponsored by the investigating agency, and that this applies to complainants and victims too (para 16). The petition was dismissed (para 17).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that a pujari appointed to perform sewa puja in a temple is not a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Designation is not conclusive; the test is the main work assigned, and incidental manual work does not change it (paras 13-14). The intra-court appeal was dismissed in limine (para 17).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an arbitration between two India-incorporated parties is not an ‘international commercial arbitration’ under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though its seat is Singapore and any award would be a foreign award under Part II (paras 74, 75, 93). As it has no original civil jurisdiction, the High Court returned Barminco's Section 9 application against Hindustan Zinc for filing before the Commercial Court, Udaipur (paras 78, 101, 102).
A TSP-ST (Female) candidate for Nurse Grade-II who had not claimed disability reservation was medically examined at document verification and rejected as ‘Out of other PH category’ for a 24% impairment in one arm. The Rajasthan High Court allowed her writ petition: only candidates claiming the disability quota could be medically examined before selection, and a person with a disability, more or less than 40%, who does not claim reservation cannot be denied appointment (paras 32-34, 53).
The Rajasthan High Court faulted a trial court for refusing to summon the call details of the Seizure Officer and other police officials in an NDPS trial, where the accused claimed they were not at the place of seizure on the date and time alleged. Summoning them was imperative for a fair trial (para 4). All courts in Rajasthan were directed to decide such applications forthwith, as service providers delete records after one year (para 6).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the period for paying 20% under Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 60 days extendable by 30, can be extended in the facts of each case, because the provisions state no consequence for non-compliance (para 11). Relying on Supreme Court rulings on time limits, it set aside an Alwar Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to extend time and directed the amount to be deposited within 15 days (para 12).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the cognizance of offences under Sections 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 taken against a hospital's Trustee and authorised Secretary. The complaint alleged that drugs were sold in the hospital without a valid licence, but did not state his specific role in the sale or in obtaining the licence. Overall responsibility for a hospital does not create liability under Section 34(1), and the Magistrate had not examined this (paras 11-12).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed three revision petitions against a Special Court's order of 21.01.2019 taking cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA in a mines bribery case, and seven Section 482 petitions against the refusal to convert the accused's arrest warrants into bailable warrants (opening paragraph, paras 2, 48, 63). A person accused of money laundering need not have committed the scheduled offence (para 44), and the 2019 Explanation to Section 3 is clarificatory (para 41).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 1999 conviction for carrying 250 grams of opium, holding that a notice which merely conveyed that the accused could be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate did not apprise him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution also never exhibited the seized opium or the sample, leaving the seizure itself unproved (paras 7-11).
The Rajasthan High Court acquitted two men convicted of keeping ganja, doda powder and opium, holding that when secret information is received at the police station, Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires it to be written down and sent to superior officers in writing; a wireless message suffices only for a patrolling party. With no proof of written transmission or of the Section 42(2) report, the trial was vitiated (paras 20-25).