Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Kishan Lal on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 119/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Kishan Lal S/o Shri Tulsaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Raghunathpura, P.s. Nana, District Pali.
----Respondent
with
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 120/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Ajay @ Azad S/o Hira Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Mathugamda Phala Gadat Upla, P.s. Sadar Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur Pali.
----Respondent
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 124/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Ram Niwas S/o Moda Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Indawad,
Police Station Gotan, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 128/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Gobarram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Gudda Naharkan, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Pali (Raj.).
----Respondent
(2 of 4) [CRLLA-119/2021]
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 132/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Naresh Kumar S/o Teluram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 1/235,
Housing Board, Tehsil And Dist. Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 137/2021
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Sikander S/o Sher Mohd. Musalman, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Tilak Nagar Basti, Kabilon Ka Chowk, P.s. Udaimandir, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP
Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
30/07/2021
These cases listed in the cause list are not in accordance
with roster laid down by the present Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The
roster assigned to this Court is "SB CRIMINAL BAILS U/S 438 AND
439 CR.P.C., REGISTERED FROM JULY 2021 ONWARDS. SB
CRIMINAL APPEALS U/S 14A SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 RELATED TO BAILS, ALL SB MATTERS
PERTAINING TO PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, WHERE
PROSECUTION SANCTION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED." However,
criminal leave to appeals have been listed which are not pertaining
to Prevention of Corruption Act.
(3 of 4) [CRLLA-119/2021]
In view thereof, any order passed by this Court would be
without jurisdiction. It was informed on administrative side that
the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice had directed to list Criminal
Leave to Appeals on the last working day of each month at
Jodhpur. However, the present Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has
assigned the roster in supersession of earlier orders, has not
passed any such orders and therefore, this Court would be unable
to pass any orders on the Criminal Leave to Appeals listed by the
Registry without the permission and sanction of the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice. In State of Rajasthan Versus Prakash Chand
and Others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court
has observed as under:-
"59. From the preceding discussion the
following broad CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of
course, is not to be treated as a summary of
our judgment and the conclusions should be
read with the text of the judgment:
(1) That the administrative control of the High
Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the
judicial side, however, he is only the first
amongst the equals.
(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the
roster. He alone has the prerogative to
constitute benches of the court and allocated
cases to the benches so constituted.
(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that
work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice
or under his directions.
(4) That till any determination made by the
Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly
can sit in a Division Bench and no Division
Bench can be split up by the Judges
constituting the bench can be split up by the
Judges constituting the bench themselves and
one or both the Judges constituting such bench
sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial
(4 of 4) [CRLLA-119/2021]
business not otherwise assigned to them by or
under the directions of the Chief Justice.
(5) That the Chief Justice can take cognizance
of an application laid before him under Rule 55
(supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for
its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction
even in relation to a part-heard case.
(6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pick and
choose" any case pending in the High Court and
assign the same to himself or themselves for
disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief
Justice.
(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions
to the Registry for listing any case before him
or them which runs counter to the directions
given by the Chief Justice."
Similar view has been followed subsequently by Supreme
Court in Shanti Bhushan Versus Supreme Court of India
through its Registrar & another reported in (2018) 8 SCC
In view of above this Court deems it appropriate to let the
matters be listed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on
administrative side before any judicial order is passed on any of
the appeals.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
1-6/-saurabh
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
