STATE Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE dealing with civil original suit No. 70 of 1967 entitled Shri Harbans Lai and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. I came across the following order passed on March 9, 1968, by the Sub Registrar Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu, in cirminal challan No. 37 of 1966, preferred Under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Ranbir Penal Code by the S. H. O, Police Station Saddar Jammu, against the respondent who was subject on the relevant date to the Army Act (Act XLVI of 1950) hereinafter called 'the Act':

(2.) PURSUANT to the rule the respondent appeared before the Hon'ble Chief Justice before whom the matter originally came up for hearing and submitted that the order passed by the learned trial magistrate was correct and did not warrant any interference in view of a single bench decision of this Court In Bimla Devi v. G. L. Bakshi A. I. R. 1960 I and K 145.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Major A. J Anand v. State A. I. R. 1960 J and K. 139 seems to have contended before the Hon'ble Chief Justice that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was palpably illegal and could not be sustained. His Lordship, however, being of the view that the case involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Sections 125, 126 and 3 (ii) of the Act and that the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the court required reconsideration as it did not appear to have noticed Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the rules framed there under directed that the case be placed for hearing before a Full Bench of this Court. The case has accordingly been put up before this bench.