Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Apr-18-1960
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1080
..... in which f the accused can know that he is holding an in-' quiry and not a trial is by the magistrate informing the accused that he is holding an inquiry under ch, xviii and not a trial. if he fails to do so, the accused can reasonably conclude that a trial is being held. the fact that in the ..... statement. in these circumstances, the offence, in my opinion, would fall under section 324 and not under section 307 r. p. c. as has been held by the additional sessions judge.16. the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial was vitiated because the appellant was not given opportunity to produce evidence in defence in the committal proceedings ..... at the complainant. in order to bring home the offence under section 307 the prosecution must show that the accused had done an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge, that but for some intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. there is not an iota of evidence that the accused had fired .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jul-05-1960
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1593
..... the complaint be sent to the officer commanding w. station c/o 56 apo. the file be consigned to records.the complainant took the matter in revision to the sessions judge srinagar who confirmed the order of the magistrate, she has, therefore, come up to this court in further revision for redress.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner- ..... by any court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of india outside the state of jammu and kashmir is a 'civil offence' within the meaning of the act. a particular act or omission may or may not be an offence in the state of jammu and kashmir. but that is not the test for deciding whether it is a ..... inadequate to enable me to hold that the order passed by the magistrate and confirmed by the sessions judge is erroneous in law. the magistrate relied upon section 125 of the army act, 1950, central act xlvi of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act) which reads:when a criminal court and a court-martial have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Oct-20-1960
Reported in : 1961CriLJ258
..... definition of the words 'person in authority' but it is well established that the words have reference to a person who has authority to interfere in the matter under inquiry.... the reported cases on the point show that, generally speaking, a 'person in authoritywithin the meaning of section 24 is the one who is engaged in the apprehension ..... lr) : at page 273 of air says that section will be applicable to a confession made by a person, who becomes subsequently accused of an offence. the other judges in effect accept this, but they differed from the learned chief justice on the question of fact as to whether the confessions were made by inducement, threat or promise. ..... , it was contended by mr. sharma, that the confession made by her (the appellant) was not voluntary and was also inadmissible under section 24 of the evidence act. in our opinion, the contention seems to be well founded and must prevail.13. the advocate general on the other hand submitted two serious arguments to rule out the .....
Tag this Judgment!