Jammu and Kashmir Court April 2000 Judgments

Mohd. Khan S/O. Alaf DIn and Cate Hujam Vs. State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3206

T.S. Doabin, J.1. Appellant stands convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985).2. Prosecution story in brief is that on the night intervening 1/2 Feb., 1988 near factory of Fatehpur Garian, the police party had laid a ambush near the factory of Fatehpur Garian. At about 10.40 p.m. in the mid night the police party heard some persons talking to each other. The police party asked them to disclose their identity. These persons started running. They were three in number. Two of them were successful in escaping from the police cordon, whereas one of them carrying one cloth bag was apprehended by the police party. The person who was so apprehended is none but the appellant in this case. As soon as he was apprehended, he threw the Plastic bag on the ground. The commodity so thrown on the ground was taken possession of. It was found that the packet contained 75 gms. of heroin and 2800 ...

Manoj Kumar Vs. State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3270

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. The appellant who has been convicted for having committed an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, was 17 years of age. He was a student of 10th Class. The prosecutrix was also almost of the same age. She was around 16 years of age. She was also a student. They were neighbours. The events came to light when symptoms of pregnancy could no longer be kept secret from the parents. This was almost four months after the first sexual contact. The alleged offence is said to have been committed ten years ago. Besides seeking reversal of the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the appellant at the time of commission of offence and the fact that both sides have settled in life, be taken note of and reformatory approach be adopted in this case. The appellant is said to be looking after his wife, children and parents. The prosecutrix is married to another person, who, as per the appellan...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: [2001]114TAXMAN453(NULL)

Saraf, C.J.By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Commissioner seeks a direction to the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, to refer the following three questions of law to this court for opinion :'1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the assessing officer to grant investment allowance on transformer ?2. Whether the Tribunal has not failed to appreciate that the transformer was used mainly in the production of alcoholic drinks which is listed in the Eleventh Schedule and its incidental use in the manufacture of ice did not earn for the assessee the deduction under section 31A ?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the converse of section 32(2A) is true which it has held impliedly by its decisions ?'2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that the controversy in regard to...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

B.P. Saraf, Chief Justice 1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ('Tribunal') to refer the following three questions of law to this Court for opinion :'i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance on Transformer? ii. Whether the Tribunal has not failed to appreciate that the Transformer was used mainly in the production of alcoholic drinks which is listed in the Eleventh Schedule and its incidental use in the manufacture of ice did not earn for the assessee the deduction under section 31A? iii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the converse of section 32(2A) is true which it has held impliedly by its decision?' 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that ...

Rajinder Kaul Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR2000J& K112

B.P. Saraf, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the J & K State Consumers Protection Commission. Jammu ('Commission') by which the complaint of the appellant against the respondent Insurance Company was dismissed on the ground that the claim for loss or damage was not made within period of 12 calendar months as contemplated by condition No. 4 (iii) of the Policy of insurance.2. The Commission relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sujir G. Nayak & Co. AIR 1997 SC 2049.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute about that fact that the loss took place in March 1992 and it was reported to the Insurance Company after about 3 years in January, 1995. Clause 4(i) of the Policy of Insurance stipulates that on the happening of any loss or damage, the insured shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Company and shall within 15 days after the loss or damage or such further time as the Company may in writing a...

Mukesh Kapoor Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3236

A.M. Mir, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against a judgment of a single Judge of this Court (Goel, J.) passed on 18-11-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 15/94. The order of the learned single Bench was passed while exercising appellate powers of the Court. The appeal taken before the learned single Bench called in question a judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Jammu on 24-10-1994. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307, RPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Besides this, a fine of rupees one lac was imposed which after realisation was payable to Smt. Veena Kapoor, wife of the appellant. However, in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of three years more.2. A coordinate Bench of this court (Bhawani Singh, C.J. and M.Y. Kawoosa, J. as their Lordships then were), on 30-11-1999 issued notice in the appeal and stayed the order passed by the learned single Bench on 18-11-1999.3. The first...