Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Oct-26-1967
Reported in : 1968CriLJ1082
..... if any, produced by the prosecutor and examined, and consider whether in the interest of justice it is necessary to record the evidence of other witnesses.in inquiries relating to charges for serious offences like murder, normally the magistrate should insist upon the examination of the principal witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. ..... error committed by his predecessor committed the accused to the court of session without recording the evidence of the witnesses cited by the prosecution. the sessions judge has recommended that the committal order cannot be sustained on the ground that there were eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution and the additional district magistrate ought ..... meet in the court of session. in kirpal singh v. state of uttar pradesh : 1965crilj636 , it has been held:before the code was amended by act 26 of 1955 it was necessary for the magistrate holding the enquiry to record the evidence of all the important witnesses. with a view to shorten delays in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Oct-13-1967
Reported in : 1968CriLJ1074
..... . in that case their lordships of the supreme court have observed as follows:as the law stands at present, the only purpose, for which an enquiry under the public servants (inquiries) act, 1850, can be made is to help the government to come to a definite conclusion regarding the misbehaviour of a public servant and thus enable it to determine provisionally the ..... raning rawat v. state of saurashtra, : 1952crilj805 , which is more pertinent, would show that section 11 of the saurashtra public safety measures (third amendment) ordinance which provides that a special judge shall try such offences or class of offences or such cases or class of cases as saurashtra government may, by general or special order direct in that behalf was upheld .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jan-14-1967
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ780J& K
..... alone. moreover, there is another circumstance which lands support to this view which is that in case the high court after inquiry into the conduct of a district judge or a judge subordinate to him comes to the conclusion that penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is not called for, it ..... have committed certain irregularities which amounted to corruption within the meaning of the act.26. the question is, in the circumstances of the instant case, who was the authority competent to conduct the inquiry against him. the petitioner is a district judge and ho was temporarily officiating as custodian. any lapse on his part ..... judges subordinate to them. the some view has been reiterated by the supreme court in the case of state of assam v. ranga muhammad and ors. 1968 -i. l.l.j.282.22. the learned advocate-general relying on section 126 of the constitution of jammu and kashmir argued that the governor being the dismissing authority is alone competent to conduit disciplinary inquiry .....
Tag this Judgment!