Jammu and Kashmir Court July 1976 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.
State Vs. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1109
ORDERAdarsh Sein Anand, J.1. The following question of law and of general public importance arises for determination in this reference made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar:Whether a person not examined during the investigation by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to be produced by the prosecution subsequently at the trial under the provision of Section 251-A (7) Cr.P.C.For the proper determination of this question, it will be relevant to note some of the salient facts of this case which have given rise to the reference under consideration.2. In a case State v. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh for an offence under Section 304-A.R.P.C. the prosecution cited five witnesses including two eye witnesses in its calendar of witnesses. During the examination of one of the eye witnesses, by name Haji Ghulam Ahmad Najar, it transpired that person by name of Mushtaq Ahmad was also present at the time of the occurrence and had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution on the...
Sonaullah Mir and ors. Vs. State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ302
Adarsh Sein Anand, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla, has made this reference to this Court under the following circumstances:In a case, State v. Sonnaullah and Ors. pending trial in the court of the learned Magistrate, the court directed the prosecution to supply copies of documents under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code to the accused and adjourned the case to 24th March, 1975, for that purpose. The case was adjourned from time to time for the same purpose, and on 28th April, 1975, the learned trial Magistrate observed that the prosecution had failed to supply the copies of the documents to the accused; for that default of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate dismissed the case and ordered the discharge of the accused persons. It appears that on the same day after pronouncing and signing the order of discharge of the accused, the prosecution produced the copies of the documents for supplying to the accused persons and on that, the court directed notice to be issued to...
Shiv Raj Vs. the Superintendent, Central Jail
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ79
ORDERMian Jalal-Ud-Din, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent the Superintendent. Central Jail, Jammu.2. The petitioner has averred that he was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Udhampur on 29th of April, 1'974 and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Sections 397, 394 and 392 E.P.C. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal the petitioner's conviction was altered to Section 324, R.P.C. and sentence was reduced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. According to the petitioner he was arrested on 26th of June, 1973, and he remained under-trial prisoner from 26th June, 1973 to 29th of April, 1974, when he was convicted. The grievance of the petitioner is that he approached the respondent for giving him the benefit of Section 397-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which the period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case...
Mohd. Ahsan Wani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Overruled
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR84(J&K)
Ansari, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'): '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was legally competent to set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment de novo 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no link between the amounts declared by Teja Begum Nazir Ahmad and Javeed Ahmad on January 25, 1966, under Section 24(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, and the amount of Rs. 85,000 alleged to have been advanced by them to the assessee on September 6, 1965 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the impugned...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›