Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K31
1. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and also perused the record placed in a sealed cover before us by the Registrar of the Court. He after holdingan enquiry has given a clear finding that counter-affidavit had been filed prior to the date of the impugned judgment. He has opined that the counter-affidavit in the matter stood filed before the Court (learned single Bench) on 7-7-1993. It is also found that the same affidavit was placed on record with a CMP filed by learned counsel for the Appellant before that bench in terms of Sections 148 and 155 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was never disposed of.2. We have ourselves examined the record placed before us. The counter seems to have been filed on 20-5-1993 and CMP No. 3051 / 93 was filed for consideration of the Court for condonation of delay. According to the Enquiry Officer (Registrar) the learned counsel appearing for the State seems to have kept this application with him up to 7-7-1993. The judgment a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1391
ORDERA.B. Qadir Parray, J.1. By this petition, detention of one Mohammad Aslam Dar son of Ghulam Rasool Dar R/O Buchpora, Illahibagh, Soura, Srinagar is being challenged by his father Ghulam Rasool Dar.2. The detenue as per averments is alleged to have been arrested in the month of July, 1994 by the security forces during crack down and was subsequently detained under the provisions of J&K; Public Safety Act in terms of order No. DMS/PSA/738/94 dated 30-11-1994 for a period of 24 months. The grounds of detention have also been served to the detenu, who is reported to be 8th class pass and Tailor by profession. Petitioner has assailed the order of detention in this petition on many counts.3. The petition has been admitted to hearing on 1 -4-1995 and in response to the notices, respondents caused their appearance through Mr. A. M. Bhat, Government Advocate and have also filed the counter-affidavit which is on the file.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter-affid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2040
A.B. Qadir Parray, J.1. Mr. Shah has drawn my attention to Section 276, Cr. P.C. which has been incorporated in the Code vide amendment No. XXXVII of 1978, which reads:-'276. Judgment of acquittal or conviction :- After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 562, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law'.2. Plain reading of Sub-section (2) of said section reveals that before awarding sentence after conviction of the accused, the Court of Session has to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence.3. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge, has not followed this mandatory provision of law while awarding sentence after convicting the accused under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. So the appeal on this count requires acceptance. The appeal is accordingly accep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3150
ORDERAb. Qadir Parray, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of discharge passed by learned Session Judge, Bhaderwah dated 19-2-1992 in case State versus Anar Chand under Sections 302/34 of RPC for setting aside the same.2. In order to appreciate the matter in its correct perspective, it will be advisable to give brief resume of the facts which have given rise to the present petition.3. One Ali Shah, Inspector who was officer Incharge of Police Station Bhaderwah had lodged am FIR on 30-10-1991 at 9.45 a.m. on having received information through reliable sources that near Sanso Bridge about 200 Kms. on Chai Road that a corpse is lying on spot in pool of blood who had received some injuries on his head.4. On this information, the police moved on spot and found that besides the corpse, a pair of black shoes, a wrist watch along with chain and some match sticks scattered on the ground. It was presumed that some scuffle had taken place which has resulted in the death ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ461J& K
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. Briefly stated, the appellant claimed compensation before the Commissioner for the death of her husband during the course of his employment with the respondents. She stated that her husband was employed as Conductor/second driver by respondent No. 1, and on September 22, 1989 while he was on his way from Srinagar to Jammu in vehicle No. JKN/8867, the vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle fell about 200 feet deep into a Nallah, as a result whereof husband of the appellant suffered multiple injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same on September 27, 1989. She further stated that her husband was being paid a salary of Rs. 1200/- PM and he was aged 25 years at the time of his death. The vehicle in question stood insured with respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company.2. The Commissioner heard the respondents. It was not disputed before Commissioner that the death of the appellant's hu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1618
ORDERA.B. Qadir Parray, J.1. From the persual of this file, it transpires that this revision was filed by the State against the order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, Chadoora in file No. 65 captioned Food Inspector versus Ghulam Qadir Wani.2. Complaint against the accused/non-applicant Ghulam Qadir Wani was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chadoora under the provisions of Section 16(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for conducting business of food stuffs without renewal of his licence for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86. After the complaint was filed/presented before the court below, accused had appeared. Charge was stated to him. He had denied the allegations and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence in support of the complaint.3. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the complainant did not produce any evidence in support of his complaint and instead absented himself from the prosecution of the case. Records further revea...
Tag this Judgment!