Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Bimla Devi vs Capt. G.L. Bakshi And Ors. on 5 July, 1960

Dev Anand Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 July, 1985

7. learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on AIR 1960 J & K 145 : 1960 Cri LJ 1593 (2) (Bimla Devi v. G.L. Bakshi) E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1977 J & K 81 : 1977 Cri U 1534 (FB) (Mahabir Singh v. State) and 1983 Kash LJ 279 : 1983 Cri LJ 1788 (Sewa Ram Nagial v. Union of India) and submitted that following the ratio decidendi of the above said authorities, it was incumbent on the General Court Martial to comply with the provisions of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, which stands violated in basing the conviction of the petitioner on the plea of guilty! In reply learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as pointed out in the counter affidavit and also duly supported on record that the plea of guilty is based on a voluntary confession and also stands corroborated by other evidence on record, which was taken in the presence of the petitioner. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stands falsified on record. It will be convenient to mention here that an opportunity was given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to inspect the record, which was inspected by him by the order of the Court despite that nothing could be pointed out during the course of arguments to show that any of his contentions as mentioned above finds support from the record of enquiry, the order passed by the General Court Martial is by the responsible authorities of the Army and the affidavit sworn in by Lt. Col. I. C. Kewlani Commanding Officer stands unrebutted, I, therefore, find that all the above quoted authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him, they are neither applicable on the facts of the present case nor cover the point which he wanted to demonstrate, thus point No. 2 also has no legs to stand. It is, therefore, held that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be set aside in the present writ petition specially when this Court in a writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence, it cannot be quashed in the circumstances of the present case. The petitioner ought to have taken recourse if he wanted to challenge the findings on facts before the appropriate forum Under Section 164 of the Act. Having failed to do so, he is not entitled to any relief in the present petition.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1