Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Mohd. Zaman And Ors. on 1 August, 1980

Rasila Ram And Anr. vs State Of J. And K. on 7 November, 1997

This is required to.avert improvements and embellishments in the first version of the crime. Petitioner No. 7 was released by the police under Section 169, Cr.P.C. but this section also admits the supremacy of the concerned Magistrate as it is provided therein that if the person who is released under this section is in custody he has to execute a bond with or without sureties and the officer incharge of the Police Station is to direct him to appear if and when so required before the Magistrate and to try the accused or commit him for trial. The plea advanced by the learned counsel that the Magistrate can implead an accused only on the production of supplementary challan under Sub-clause (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. runs contrary to the raison detre of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has his defined role so far as the investigation and trial of an offence is concerned and there can be no circumvention of it. This Court in the case of State v. Mohd. Zaman (1981 Cri LJ 783) (supra) has held that a Sessions Judge can try an accused without an order of acquittal.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.K. Mahajan And Etc. vs Municipality on 29 July, 1981

3. A preliminary objection, based upon the view taken by this Court in its two earlier cases, namely. Narrinder Kumar v. State, Cr. Revision petition No. 24 of 1980 decided on 10-2-1981 and State v. Mohd. Zaman Shah 1981 Srina-gar LJ 38 : 1981 Cri LJ 783 that an order framing a charge being interlocutory in nature, is not revisable, was raised on behalf of the respondent. This objection was sought to be met by the opposite party in two ways; one, that the Amending Act is not retrospective in nature and has, therefore, no application to pending cases, and two, that an order framing a charge, in any event, is final in nature, hence revisable.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 15 - A S Anand - Full Document

Amar Nath vs State And Ors. on 21 April, 2007

9. Section 193 read with Section 351 of the Code was subject matter of discussion in a case titled as State v. Mohammad Zaman and Ors. reported in KLJ 1981, P. 221 and their Lordships have held that trial court-Sessions Court has powers to array any person as an accused, if during trial evidence recorded indicate prima facie involvement of that person. It is profitable to reproduce Para 5 of that judgement herein:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document
1