Jammu and Kashmir Court November 1997 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.
Jagan Nath and ors. Vs. Hem Raj
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2709
ORDERA.M. Mir, J.1. This is criminal reference made by the Sessions Judge Kathua vide his order dated 30-7-1997 whereunder a recommendation has been made to quash the order passed by A.D.M. Kathua on 19-10-1993 by virtue of which the proceedings in terms of Section 145, Cr. P.C. (hereinafter called the Code) are sought to be dropped and paddy crop which was standing on the land was released in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. I have gone through the order of reference and also the impugned Order I agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the order passed by the trial Magistrate is bad in law. I confirm the order of reference to the extent the matter is sought to be remitted back to the Court of A.D.M. Kathua for fresh inquiry. I, however, find the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge not exhaustive and lucid. It at some points confused issues. I have the following reasoning to support the Session Judge's order :-(1) The question of imminent danger o...
Rasila Ram and anr. Vs. State of J. and K.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)20,1998CriLJ2576
ORDERG.D. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-6-1997 passed by the learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Billawar in Challan No. 81 of 1992 titled State v. Rasila Ram and Ors., offences under Sections 147,447,325,323,504, R.P.C.). In terms of the said order, the learned trial Magistrate had arrayed petitioner No. 7 namely, Subash Chander as an accused along with the other already arraigned accused who are petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 herein. In the report made before the police accusations were levelled against him (petitioner No. 7) also but the police during investigation had released him under Section 169, Cr.P.C. holding that there was no sufficient evidence to justify his forwarding as an accused to the Magistrate. The trial Court after taking the cognizance of the offences recorded the evidence of the prosecution (petitioners Nos. 1 to 6)underthe provisions of Section 342, Cr.P.C. He then heard the arguments of the prosecution and the d...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›