Jammu and Kashmir Court June 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Qadir Bangroo and anr. Vs. Subhan Shigan
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jun-15-1957
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1399
ORDERShahmiri, J.1. This is a revision application directed against an order of the City Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, by which lie has attached revenue-paying land, measuring 13 kapals and 5 marlas, bearing Khasra Nos. 268 and 517, along with a house and a Kothar, situate in Luchhmanpura, Batnialna, under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the applicants had first presented a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Kashmir, who dismissed it on the ground that the Magistrate had not committed any illegality, This revision application shall, therefore, be treated as a revision against the order of the Sessions Judge.2. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. It appears that on 27th April, 1957 an application under Section 145/107, Cr. P. C. was presented before the City Munsiff Magistrate, and on the same date, after recording the bare statement of the non-applicant (applicant before him), he made an order in terms of Sub...
State Vs. Abdullah Shah
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jun-12-1957
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1401
Jia Lal Kilam, J.1. This reference to the Full Bench involves an important question of law pertaining to the powers which a Sessions Judge might use while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It appears that a criminal challan was pending before the Munsiff Magistrate Anantnag who recorded the whole of the evidence produced in the case both by the prosecution and the defence. The case was ripe for judgment when the trial Magistrate was promoted to the post of an Additional District Magistrate in the same district. The accused made a submission to the Additional District Magistrate that since it was he who had recorded the evidence of the parties and had noted the demeanour of the witnesses, he may transfer the case to his own file and decide it himself.The accused had further submitted in his application that in case the transfer of the case was not ordered, he would be compelled to request re-summoning of the witnesses under Section 350, Criminal P. C., which would lead to a great deal...
Gulam Nabi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jun-11-1957
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1124
ORDERKilam, J. 1. This is revision application directed against an order of the Special Magistrate Srinagar (Mr. Ram Saroop) dated 25th March 1957. The learned Magistrate has pointed out that 'the protection given by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is available to an accused person who is asked by the police to give his thumb impression for the purpose of comparison during investigation by the police.' The Magistrate has further observed that 'it is therefore concluded in the present case that the accused is entitled to ask for protection'. But he has significantly added that' in this case the accused must show that he was compelled to give thumb impression by the police'. In the next sentence the Magistrate has again observed thatgiving of the thumb impression to the police amounts to furnishing of evidence against himself within the meaning of 'to be a witness' : ... .Before holding in the present case whether the accused is entitled to protection under Article 20(3) of the Constit...
Alam Bhat and ors. Vs. Sultan Ganai and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jun-04-1957
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1125
ORDERKilam, J.1. This is a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Srinagar with the recommendation that the order passed in an application under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. by the learned City Munsiff Magistrate Srinagar be set aside. It is further recommended that the Magistrate be directed to proceed on with the case in accordance with law. The opinion of the learned Sessions Judge may be given in his own words. Says he:It seems to me that there is no preliminary order in existence as the learned Magistrate was required to draw under Section 145 Criminal P. C.I might agree with the learned Sessions Judge to this extent that the preliminary order passed by the trial Magistrate has not been drawn in proper legal form. But this alone would not induce me to quash the order and the proceedings taken so far by the Magistrate. The Magistrate has as a matter of fact found that there is a dispute concerning some land. He has also mentioned in his preliminary order that the danger ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›