Jammu and Kashmir Court May 1960 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.
Ghulam Mohd. Dar Vs. State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-20-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1083
ORDERK.V. Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge at Srinagar under the following circumstances. The first class Magistrate at Pulwama in a summary trial under Chapter XII of the Cr.PC. convicted one Ghulam Mohd. Dar Under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to pay a line of Rs. 200 and also disqualified him from driving a motor vehicle for a period of one year. The conviction was based on a plea of guilty. On revision, the Sessions Judge expressed the view that the conviction was unjustified as no offence had been made out by the prosecution against the accused.2. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence Under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Cr.PC. upon a report in writing made by the Station House Officer, Pulwama. The facts stated in that report as constituting the offence were that Ghulam Mohd. Dar, the accused, was driving stage carriage, J and K 8164, from Shopian to Srinagar with 27 passengers...
New Raginaya Goods Mart and anr. Vs. State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-11-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1085
ORDERS.M. Fazl Ali, J.1. These are two revision applications against the orders of the Court below convicting the petitioners Under Section 268 of the Municipal Act and sentencing them to a fine of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 35/-.2. The prosecution case was that on 22-10-59 the petitioners had stocked the fruit cases on the court road causing obstruction to the traffic thereby. When the petitioners were brought before the Court, the Magistrate does not appear to have explained title substance of accusation to them, as required under the provisions of Section 242 Cr.PC. The Magistrate, however, recorded a plea of guilty in which the accused merely stated that he had deposited certain fruit cases on the road. The Magistrate) convicted the petitioners on the basis of the plea of guilty as referred to above.3. In my opinion, the conviction as also the sentence imposed on the petitioners cannot be maintained. It is well settled that before a Court can convict an accused person merely on his admission...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›