Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Court:Jammu & Kashmir Year:1953

Feb 18 1953

Illamdin Vs. State

  • Decided on : 18-Feb-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1953CriLJ1356

Kilam, J.1. Illam Din, accused appellant, has been convicted under Sections 363 and 376, R.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge Jammu. Under Section 363, R.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo, three years' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 376 to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The charge against Illam Din has been that he kidnapped a minor girl by name Atri and committed rape on her. The accused has denied the charge.3. The case of the prosecution is that Mst. Atri was kidnapped by Illam Din accused on 15th Jeth 2007. It is further alleged that he kept Atri with himself for two nights when Atri, taking advantage of the fact that the accused had fallen fast asleep, gave him a slip and ran away. The F.I.R. was lodged on 18th Jeth 2007. Mst. Atri was examined by Dr. Bodh Raj who stated that in his opinion she was between 10-13 years of age and that rape had been committed on her some time a week before she was examined by him. Besides Dr. Bodh Raj, the prosecution has produced the following witnesses:4. Mst. Atri, Puro, Somraj, Jalalud-Din and Amarchand.5. Atri describes as to how she had gone to a water mill on the evening of 15th Jeth. 2007, when she was accosted by the accused and carried away. She also states that later on he committed rape on her.6. Puro P. W. 3 who is the owner of the water mill states that Atri came to his mill one day in the month of Jeth 2007 along with the accused. The mill was at ...

Feb 25 1953

Devia Ram and Anr. Vs. L. Ram Chand

  • Decided on : 25-Feb-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1953CriLJ1359

ORDERKilam, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. with the prayer that the criminal proceedings pending against the accused applicants in the Court of Sub-Judge Magistrate first class Jammu be quashed. The following facts have given rise to this application:The accused applicants, Ths. Devia Ram and Beli Ram are alleged to have entered into an agreement with the complainant, L. Ram Chand, stipulating that they would engage 100 well-trained sawyers for sawing logs in Mar-mat jungle. It was further stipulated that by 15th Chet 2008 the work will be commenced which was to be completed by Maghar 2009. At the time of executing the agreement, the complainant advanced to the accused applicants a sum of Rs. 1000/-. According to the agreement, Rs. 2000/- more were to be paid. to the accused-applicants in the month of Phagan 2008. The second installment of Rs. 2000/- which was stipulated to be paid in the month of Phagan 2008 was however paid on 26th Chet 2008. It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of the fact that an advance of Rs. 3000/- was made to the accused applicants, they did not at all commence work as well stipulated by them. The complainant further affirms that the accused had fraudulent intentions from the very beginning pursuant to which they made false representations and thereby induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 3000/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that in case he had known about the fraudulent intentions of ...

Jul 28 1953

Ghulam Nabi Jan Vs. State

  • Decided on : 28-Jul-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1953CriLJ1885

Jia Lal Kilam, J.1. This is an application submitted by Ghulam Nabi Jan detenu under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Ghulam Nabi Jan who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the Public Security Act, is this time under detention in the Sub Jail, Udhampur. His contention as raised by his Learned counsel in brief is that his detention at Udhampur is both illegal and improper, that he had gone to the place wherefrom he was arrested (office of Kh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Advocate) simply to get his papers back from Mr. Latif Advocate who had turned a politician and was not likely to devote much time to his profession and to the cases which the applicant says he had entrusted to him. Before us the detenu is represented by an Advocate of this Court, Pt. Lok Nath Sharma.Pandit Sharma has made a two pronged attack upon the validity of the order of detention on two grounds: firstly that the arrest of, the detenu by S. Ghulam Qudir, Inspector of Police, was not effected strictly according to law, and secondly that his transfer from Kothibagh sub-jail Srinagar to Udhampur sub-jail is illegal and that his detention at Udhampur is equally against the provisions of law. As regards the illegality of the arrest, the Learned counsel has raised a number of pleas, chief amongst them being that the order of arrest was in fact not existing at the time when the arrest of the detenu was effected, the suggestion being that it has been prepared afterwards to tide over a difficult legal position. ...

Sep 09 1953

The State Vs. Sujan Singh and Ors.

  • Decided on : 09-Sep-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1954CriLJ488

1. This is an appeal filed by the Government through the Assistant Advocate General against the order of acquittal passed by Magistrate first class Srinagar.2. Accused No. 1 was challaned under Section 3 of the Gambling Act for owning or keeping a common gaming house and other respondents under Section 4 being found in a common gaining house.3. It appears that the District Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, received credible information that the hotel owned by accused No. 1 is used as a common gaming house and a number of persons actually go there for the purpose of gambling. The District Superintendent of Police accompanied by Mr. Tek Chand, Munsif magistrate first class, Srinagar and some police officers entered the hotel and the accused persons were arrested from inside. The place was searched and instruments of gaming were seized of which an Inventory was prepared and signed by the District Superintendent of Police. The accused persons arrested in the hotel were sent up for trial. The trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the inventory of the instruments of gaming was not prepared by the District Superintendent of Police in his own handwriting and he has further held that the search was not conducted by the District Superintendent of Police personally and as the provisions of Section 5 of the Gambling Act were not strictly complied with presumption under Section 6 on the basis of the recoveries could not be raised against the accused. The accused ...

Aug 06 1953

Ghulam Hassan Vs. State

  • Decided on : 06-Aug-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1954CriLJ497

ORDERShahmiri, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Kashmir under Section 438, Criminal P.C. recommending that the conviction recorded by the District Magistrate, Anantnag and the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- passed by him on the applicant in a case tried by him summarily 'under Sections 16 and 124, Motor Vehicles Regulation' be quashed on the ground chat the District Magistrate (1) has failed to frame the record according to the mandatory provisions of Sections 263 and 264, Criminal P. C., (2) has not passed the sentence according to law and (3) has convicted the applicant for the contravention of certain sections of an Act which is no longer in force.2. I have been taken through the report of the learned Sessions Judge and the explanation submitted by the learned District Magistrate by the Acting Advocate General. The learned Acting Advocate General submits that the errors pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in the order of the learned District Magistrate do actually exist and that the conviction and the sentence of the applicant should be quashed and that the case should be remanded for re-trial. After examining the case with care I agree with the Sessions Judge and the Acting Advocate General that the applicant has not had a fair trial and that the interests of justice require that a fresh trial should be ordered in this case. The register of the summary trials in which certain entries have been made by the District Magistrate in this case does ...

Dec 31 1953

Mst. Savitri Vs. L. Shiv Nath

  • Decided on : 31-Dec-1953

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1954CriLJ1065

Shahmiri, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Jammu in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2010 filed before him against an order of the Sub-Judge Magistrate First Class, Jammu, rejecting an application of Mst. Savitri for exemption from personal attendance in a case under Sections 363 and 366, R. P. C., in which she figured as one of the accused persons, on the ground that under Section 353, Cr. P. C., the trial Magistrate had no power to grant such exemption. The learned Sessions Judge after examining the case, has held that the order of the trial Magistrate was wrong and that he had power under Section 353, Cr. P. C., to exempt an accused person from personal attendance before him. He has, therefore recommended that the order of the trial Magistrate should be set aside and that Mst. Savitri should be exempted from personal attendance in Court subject to the condition that she should appear in Court on occasions when her presence is considered essential by the trial Magistrate.2. We have heard arguments in this case. The contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that Section 353, Cr. P. C., does not by itself empower the trial Magistrate to exempt an accused person from personal attendance in his Court. Section 353, Criminal P. C. is as follows:Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken under Chapters XVIII. XX, XXI, XXII and XXIII shall be taken in the presence of the accused or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //