Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2233
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Revision petition No. 24/94 was dismissed by me on merits vide judgment dt. 8-3-1995. Petitioner who had challenged the closure of his evidence was not present on that date. He has now filed this Cr. MP praying for re-hearing of the revision petition on the ground that he had been denied an opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. His plea is that his counsel could not appear on 8-3-95 due to some unavoidable circumstances and that a re-hearing in a Criminal revision was permissible under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. His counsel Mr. Sethi has also sought support from a judgment of this Court reported in 1981 JKLR, 353 : (1982 Cri LJ 297) (FB) and a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Cri LJ 1590 : (1993 AIR SCW 1174). The main point to be determined is whether it is open to the High Court to re-hear a criminal revision decided on merits one way or the other. Since petitioner has placed reliance on Section 439 Cr.P.C., it would...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1770
ORDERA.B. Qadir Parray, J.1. Till date no counter has been filed despite the fact that respondents were given last and final opportunity way back on 7-10-1995 with the direction that the matter shall be listed for final disposal in the first week of November, 1995. However, court has been gracious in granting further time of three weeks' lime on 17-10-1995 and that time has also expired, but till date there is no counter on the file.2. Petitioner has filed the two petitions for quashing of the order of detention. Both the petitions have been clubbed together i.e. HC Petition No. 1221 of 1994 and HC Petition No. 310 of 1995. Contempt petition No. 5 of 1995 is also on the records, which has become infructuous.3. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the detenu was initially detained vide order No. PSA/ DMS/182/94 dated 3-6-1994. That order was challenged by way of habeas corpus petition No. 760 of 1994 and as per annexure on the file, the said detention order seems to have been qu...
Tag this Judgment!