Skip to content


Baljit Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 905 of 1981 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2500 of 1981,
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1558; 1982CriLJ1944; (1982)1SCC501
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 and 392
AppellantBaljit Singh and anr.
RespondentState of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.
Excerpt:
.....in a reference under s. 66(2) of the indian incometax act. in a reference under s. 66(2) the high court was not authorised to disregard the finding of the tribunal on a question which was essentially one of fact. in the present case the high court was not justified in interfering with the finding of the tribunal on a question of fact because it was not the case of the assessee that the conclusion of the tribunal was based on no evidence or that it was perverse. (ii) where the law prescribes conditions for obtaining the benefit of reduced liability to taxation, those conditions, unless otherwise provided, must be strictly complied with, and if they are not so complied with, the taxing authorities would be bound to refuse to give the tax payer the benefit claimed. it would be open to..........been rejected by the same hon'ble judge of the high court, although even at that stage the same ground for the transfer was put forward before him. nor do we find that it would be a correct principle to apply to the transfer of criminal cases that they should be heard at the place from where a large number of witnesses are to be examined. the normal course of things should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should have been allowed to be tried by the court which had territorial jurisdiction. accepting the appeal, there fore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the case shall continue to be tried at jammu by the court which has dealt with it so far.2. learned counsel for respondent no, 2 prays for a direction from this court in regard to production of the.....
Judgment:

A.D. Koshal, J.

1. A case under Section 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code has been transferred from Jammu to Sri nagar by the High Court through the impugned Order on the sole ground that most of the witnesses who belong to Jammu have already been examined by the trial Court and that only witnesses from Kashmir division or Delhi remain to be examined. We feel that in the circumstances of the case this is not at all a proper approach to the matter specially when another application for transfer of the case had already been rejected by the same Hon'ble Judge of the High Court, although even at that stage the same ground for the transfer was put forward before him. Nor do we find that it would be a correct principle to apply to the transfer of criminal cases that they should be heard at the place from where a large number of witnesses are to be examined. The normal course of things should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should have been allowed to be tried by the court which had territorial Jurisdiction. Accepting the appeal, there fore, we set aside the impugned Order and direct that the case shall continue to be tried at Jammu by the Court which has dealt with it so far.

2. Learned Counsel for respondent No, 2 prays for a direction from this Court in regard to production of the car in question before the trial Court, which, it is stated, has enjoined that the vehicle be made available in Court on all dates of hearing. We see no reason to accept the prayer which should be made to the trial Court.


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