J&K&L High Court Weekly Round Up :September 12 - September 18, 2022

Nominal Index :Tufail Ahmad Chota Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 149Riyaz Ahmad Wagay Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 150Rayees Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 151Parvez Ahmad Baba Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152Javid Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 153UT of J&K Through Chairman JKBOPEE Vs Dr Bhat Ab. Ubran Bin Aftab and Others 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 154Abdul Majeed Ganai Vs Abdul Rahim Bhat & Another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 155 Parvesh Bahri & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 156Geeta Devi & Ors Vs M/s Somnath Naragmal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 157Mohammad Abbas wani Vs Sharifa & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 158Vijay Singh Vs Lalita Karki & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 159Judgements/Orders :When A Graver Offence Is Added Against An Accused On Bail, Investigation Agency Has Option To Arrest After Seeking Fresh Order From Court: J&K&L HCCase Title : Tufail Ahmad Chota Vs State of J&KCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 149The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that in a criminal case when a graver offence is added, the accused who is on bail has an option of surrendering before the Court and apply for bail for newly added offence or even the investigating agency, on addition of a graver offence, has an option to proceed to arrest the accused but before doing so, it need to obtain a fresh order of arrest against the accused from the Court that had granted the bail.S.202 CrPC | Once Magistrate Delays Issuance Of Process, Its Not Open To Direct Seizure Of Suspected Stolen Property: J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Riyaz Ahmad Wagay Vs UT of J&K Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 150The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that when a Magistrate defers issuance of process under Section 202 CrPC against the accused, it is not open for him to pass directions to seize a suspected stolen property. "Unless the learned Magistrate had material before him to come to a tentative conclusion that the vehicles in question were subject matter of theft, he could not have made an order for seizure of vehicles in question. The fact that the learned Magistrate has not issued process against the petitioner in the complaint filed by the respondent, shows that the learned Magistrate has yet to render a prima facie opinion about the commission of offence of theft by the petitioner. Without applying his mind to the material on record and without recording his satisfaction as regards the commission of offence by the petitioner/accused, it was not open to the learned Magistrate to direct the seizure of the vehicles" Justice Sanjay Dhar expounded. Confession In Police Custody | 'Magistrate' U/S 26 Evidence Act Does Not Include Executive Magistrate: J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Rayees Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&KCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 151The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the term 'Magistrate' appearing in Section 26 of the Evidence Act refers only to a Judicial Magistrate of first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate and no other class of Magistrates.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:"Giving it any other construction would defeat the provisions contained in Section 164 of the Cr. P. C, which provides for safeguards for ensuring recording of confessions of the accused in a free and fair environment."Food Safety & Standard Act | Designated Authority May Not Issue License U/S 31 In Case Of Dispute Between Restaurant Co-Owners: J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Parvez Ahmad Baba Vs UT of J&KCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court ruled that if there are more than one owners of an authorized premises and only one of them applies for licence while others object, it would not be possible for the designated authority to issue license under section 31 of the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006, unless the dispute between the co-sharers is settled. Suspension Of Sentence U/S 389 CrPC Need Not Be Considered In Heinous Cases Unless Appeal Remains Undecided For 5/6 Years: J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Javid Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&KCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 153The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it has only to be after 5/6 years in case the appeal is not disposed of, that suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 CrPC be considered, in a heinous case like murder."There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellant court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine", the bench explained.Reservation Must Reach Every Deserving Candidate, Cannot Be Eaten Away By Meritorious Reserved Category Candidate: J&K&L High CourtCase Title :UT of J&K...

J&K&L High Court Weekly Round Up :September 12 - September 18, 2022

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags