Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2007(3)JKJ450
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. The petitioner-vigilance organization is aggrieved of an order passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, as the 'Special Court' under Section 8(C) of the amended 'Prevention of Corruption Act' whereunder while dis-agreeing with confirmation order of 'Designated Authority' regarding attachment of respondent's house he quashed the same, releasing the attached house. The matter arises with following circumstantial back-drop.2. Ghulam Rasool Magray, the respondent was booked by VOK under FIR 40/2003 Under Section 409, 467 and 120B RPC for having defrauded government while working in Food and Supplies Department at Wardwan Tehsil Kishtwar, by wrongly enhancing the number of people entitled to rations by around twenty two thousand and thereby wrongly procuring thousands of quintals of excessive grains from 1997 to 2002 causing a loss of around 9 corer rupees to State exchequer to his benefit along with others involved. Investigation in the matter was complete, when ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
(This Judgment Delivered at Srinagar Bench) 1) Initially vide advertisement notice dated 29.12.2012, applications were invited for filling up 49 posts of Prosecuting Officers (for short Pos). Later on vide addendum dated 13.08.2013 to the said advertisement notice, the number of posts to be filled up was notified as 98 with following break-up OMRBASTSCALCSocial CasteTotal56191008030398 2) The issues raised in SWP No.1344/2015 and in the connected petitions are identical, therefore, determination of issues in SWP No.1344/2015 will govern other petitions as well. 3) The process of selection as was set in motion is divided into four stages, Viz.: i) physical test; ii) written test of the eligible candidates as per syllabus; iii) interview of the candidates on making the grade in the written test; and iv) final selection. 4) The second stage i.e. written examination process is mainly under challenge on the count that: 1. Most of the questions as appeared in the question paper were out of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ431
S.K. Gupta, J.1. The petitioners, Shafait Ali and Shahid Hussain, involved in case registered under F.I.R. No.14/2001 of Police Station Basohli for offences under sections 302, 307, 396, 397, 120B, 121A, 341, 120 RPC, 3/25, 7/25 Arms Act and 4/5 Explosive Act and facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, have initiated this application for their release on bail under proviso to section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners further stated that even if the prosecution story with regard to the date of arrest of the accused on 04/04/2001 is taken as correct, even then from 04/04/2001 to 02/06/2001 when the petitioners were placed under detention, the prosecution failed to present the challan within sixty days. According to the petitioners, the period calculated from 04/04/2001 when the accused- petitioners are stated to have been arrested till their detention on 02/06/2001, if calculated, it comes to si! xty days That the prosecution having not produced th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1994CriLJ264
ORDERA.M. Mir, J.1. Two detention orders passed by District Magistrate, Jammu based upon stereo-type allegations, are challenged on the identical grounds and as such this common judgment will dispose of both these petitions.2. The grounds of challenge projected by the petitioners are as under:--(i) That the grounds of detention are ill founded, incorrect and illusory.(ii) That the documents referred to in the grounds have not been supplied under law.(iii) That the orders suffer from non-application of mind.(iv) That the matters were not referred to the Advisory Board.(v) That no confirmation to the detentions was accorded by the competent authority.3. The respondents' count-wise stand to the above grounds as indicated by their counter-affidavit is as under:--(i) That the grounds are cogent, correct and well founded.(ii) That the grounds have been duly received by the detenues.(iii) That the orders of detention were passed after duly considering the criminal activities of the detenues a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ663
J.P. Singh, J.1. State of Jammu and Kashmir invokes criminal Revisional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside 2nd Additional Sessions Judge's order dated September, 18,2003, refusing to take cognizance of the Police Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed by Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, on the basis of the investigation carried out in F.I.R. No. 10/2000 registered by it Under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 and 120B RPC, holding the registration of F.I.R., and investigation incompetent and beyond the power delegated to the Crime Branch Police Station under SRO 133, relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 78/1998 and 10/1999.2. Sh. Abdul Hamid Qazi, learned Additional Advocate General, while projecting non-applicability of the Division Bench judgment to the case, added that cognizance could not be refused on the ground of any alleged irregularity or for that matter even incompetence of the investigation. Sh. Qazi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996ACJ902
Bhawani Singh, Actg. C.J.1. We propose to dispose of both these appeals by a common judgment. Although the facts may be slightly different but the ultimate question for determination is identical. Before answering it, narration of facts from both the cases is being made one after the other.Sneh Sharma v. Sewa Ram, C. Ist. M.A. No. 10 of 1994:2. On 7.10.1992, deceased Pardeep Kumar Sharma was travelling in Matador JK 02-9051 for going to his office at Bikram Chowk, Jammu. The vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner with excess speed. The driver of the vehicle tried to overtake bus No. JK 02-9021 at Digyana, Jammu, where powerful bomb exploded in the bus, as a result of which number of passengers died and many others suffered serious injuries. Some splinters of the bomb caused fatal injuries to the deceased and he died.3. Claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased, but the Tribunal has rejected the petition holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ582
A.S. Anand, C.J. and R.P. Sethi, J.1. The point of law on which the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench differed in their opinion is : whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI) constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the 1946 Act) has jurisdiction to investigate cases under the Ranbir Penal Code and the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short the P.C. Act) and to file the final report before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption in a case where one of the accused is an Indian Army Officer? Whereas Brother Bhat, J. held that it does not, Brother Sethi J. held otherwise. In view of this divergence of opinion the case has been referred to me.2. The question being essentially legal, reference to some salient facts would suffice.According to the prosecution case the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 120-B, R.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
1. The petitioner-Shiv Lal entered into an Agreement with the respondent-National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited to execute the work Geological exploration by driving a drift of size 1.52 m (width) x 2.13 m (height) rectangular section, 150 m long to be excavated at EL + 1740 m at Dranghuran of Bursar HE Project, allotted to him by the Corporation. 2. During the currency of the Contract the Corporation is stated to have neglected to supply Explosives to the petitioner in terms of Condition 24 (3) of the Special Conditions, forming part of the Contract Agreement, as a result whereof the petitioner had to spend extra amount of Rs.25,85,748/-. He, therefore, preferred Claim to the Corporation seeking its settlement. 3. The Claim was not settled and the petitioner, therefore, served Notice on the Corporation requiring it to suggest its panel for selection of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon his Claim, invoking Clause 55 of the Contract Agreement. Responding to the petitioners Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1959CriLJ976
ORDERM. Fazl Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 48 of the Excise Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- by the Subordinate Magistrate, Jammu. The appeal before the Sessions Judge against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by him.2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner owned a tea and soda water shop. The shop was raided by the Inspector of Excise Order 17-6-1957 in the course of which two bottles of liquor were recovered from the shop. According to the prosecution one bottle containing three-fourth liquor was recovered from a door way leading into the inner apartment of the house of the petitioner and a bottle containing same liquor was recovered from inside a tumbler kept under a chowki in the shop. The petitioner in his statement under Section 342, Cr. P.C. stated that so far as the bottle which contained three-fourth liquor and which was recovered from the door way did not contain liquor at all whereas the bottle which was recovere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ248
Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J.1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by one Gh. Nabi Bhat R/o Kathsoo Tehsil Pahalgam District Anantnag for quashing the order of detention passed against his son Sajad Ahmad Bhat and for his release.2. Through the medium of the present petition the petitioner seeks quashment of order No. Det/PSA/05/08 dated 4.4.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act). The main ground raised to challenge the order of detention is that the same has been passed without due application of mind.3. The State has filed the reply and has also produced the record to show that the order impugned is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.4. Heard. I have perused the record relating to the detention of the detenue. District Magistrate, Anantnag has directed the detention of Sajad Ahmad Bhat the detenue vide order of detention No. Det/PSA/05/08 dated 4.4.20045. The order reads re...
Tag this Judgment!