Prem Sukh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Prem Sukh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 05, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757577

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757577
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Jan 05, 1993
Case Number: C.W.P. No. 4224/1992
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 161; Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(1) and 5(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prem Sukh

Advocate P.K. Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Paker Farooq, Dy. G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 161; Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(1) and 5(2)
Reported In: (1993)IILLJ43Raj; 1993(1)WLC402

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....15, 1992. thereafter, on september 14, 1992 one month's time was granted for filing the reply and again on november 23, 1992 one month's time was granted. the learned dy. g.a. though seeks time to file the reply, but taking into consideration the facts of the case and the fact that sufficient time has already been granted, i decline his prayer.2. the petitioner was holding the post of x-ray technician in government t.b. clinic, kota on march 2, 1987. it is alleged that at the instance of one shankar lal a trap was arranged by the anti- corruption department, kota, as the petitioner was demanding rs. 20/- for tea, etc. after carrying out the trap operation a criminal case was registered against him under section 161 ipc section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act. after registration of the case investigation was carried on and subsequently a charge-sheet was filed in : the court of special judge, anti-corruption cases, kota. after filing the charge-sheet, he was suspended under rule 13 of the rajasthan civil services (classification, control & appeal) rules, 1958 on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him under section 161 ipc and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the p.c. act.3. the petitioner was prosecuted in the court of special judge, anti- corruption cases, kota in criminal case no. 6/79 and the learned special judge vide his judgment dated march 18, 1981 convicted and sentenced him under both the courts. the petitioner preferred an appeal before this court which was heard and disposed of on july 7, 1989 in s.b. cr. appeal 229/81. the appeal was allowed by this court after disbelieving the prosecution case. consequently the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the basis of the suspension of the petitioner was the pendency of the above criminal case and after his acquittal in that case, the basis goes away, as.....

Full Judgment

N.L. Trbrewal, J.

1. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents inspite of the fact that sufficient time has already been given. The writ petition was admitted on June 15, 1992. Thereafter, on September 14, 1992 one month's time was granted for filing the reply and again on November 23, 1992 one month's time was granted. The learned Dy. G.A. though seeks time to file the reply, but taking into consideration the facts of the case and the fact that sufficient time has already been granted, I decline his prayer.

2. The petitioner was holding the post of X-Ray Technician in Government T.B. Clinic, Kota on March 2, 1987. It is alleged that at the instance of one Shankar Lal a trap was arranged by the Anti- Corruption Department, Kota, as the petitioner was demanding Rs. 20/- for tea, etc. After carrying out the trap operation a criminal case was registered against him under Section 161 IPC Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After registration of the case investigation was carried on and subsequently a charge-sheet was filed in : the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Kota. After filing the charge-sheet, he was suspended under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act.

3. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Cases, Kota in Criminal Case No. 6/79 and the learned Special Judge vide his judgment dated March 18, 1981 convicted and sentenced him under both the courts. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court which was heard and disposed of on July 7, 1989 in S.B. Cr. Appeal 229/81. The appeal was allowed by this Court after disbelieving the prosecution case. Consequently the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the basis of the suspension of the petitioner was the pendency of the above criminal case and after his acquittal in that case, the basis goes away, as such, the suspension order deserves to be set aside. In my view, this contention carries weight. From the impugned suspension order it is clear that the petitioner was suspended simply on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C Act.

After the acquittal of the petitioner in the above criminal case, the basis of the order goes away and the order cannot be sustained.

4. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension dated September 17, 1980 (Annex. 1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1993 Same Parties Prem Sukh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J. Acts & Sections Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)...

Labour and Industrial