5 Important Criminal Judgments of Rajasthan High Court 25th September 2018

1. Rajesh Shrimal v. State of Rajasthan, 25-09-2018

Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 51 and 63 - Offences under the Copyright Act are non-cognizable and police cannot register the FIR and carry the investigation.

2. Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 25-09-2018

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311 and 482 - Recalling the Witnesses - Cross Examination of Material Witnesses - Non availability of the counsel - to ensure fair play and balance of equities, one opportunity can be granted.

3. Raghuveer Singh v. Gajraj Singh, 25-09-2018

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Complainant has been appearing on each and every date, but on one pretext or the other, cross-examination was not carried. The accused simply wanted to delay the proceedings - Issuance of notice upon the respondents is dispensed with as issuance of notice will further delay the proceedings and the petitioner will succeed in its game plan to delay the proceedings - taking into account the fair play and balance of equities, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to cross examine complainant-respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs.30,000/-.

4. Abha Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 25-09-2018

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prayer of the petitioner to furnish true and correct transcription of compact disc (CD) has been declined - only the documents relied by the prosecution at the time of framing of charge can be taken into consideration and the material provided by the accused cannot be considered as the accused can produce and prove the same at the time of leading defence evidence. Consequently, prayer of the petitioner that the petitioner should be permitted to provide true transcription of CD is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to prove the same by leading defence evidence. However, it cannot be denied that the CD is part of challan filed by the prosecution and hence, there is merit in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that at the time of consideration of charges CD can be played in the court and contents thereof can be noted by the court at the time of formulation of charges. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to play the Compact Disc (CD) in presence of counsel for the parties, at the time of consideration of charges. 

5. Jankilal v. State of Rajasthan, 25-09-2018

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Age of the Prosecutrix - Trail court declined the prayer of the petitioner to summon prosecutrix, mother, father and Head Master of the School - At the time of recording of testimony of Head Master, counsel for the accused was not present and therefore, accused had not extended any cross-examination regarding the age of the prosecutrix - Since prosecutrix, mother and father of the prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile, no question was asked regarding age of the prosecutrix - Held, Journey of the court is to arrive at truth. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that to find correct age of the prosecutrix was also duty of the court. Hence, taking fair play and balance of equities, present petition is allowed.