Sahil Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

Abdul Rahim Ganai V/s State of JK and others (SRTC) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

Waqas Riyaz Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

MOHAMMAD BIN SHORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JK) 4

Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh Vs Dr. Kamal Saini 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Haja @ Hajira Bano Vs Gh. Mohammad Ahangar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Aman Gehlot Vs V/s Anti-Corruption Bureau (Central Kashmir) & ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Mohammad Altaf Mir V/ S Firdous Ahmad Mir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

GHULAM AHMAD BHAT & OTHERS Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

Sukhjit Singh Vs UT of J & K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

Iftikar Ahmad Vs Abdul Majeed 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Vishal Khajuria V/s Staff Selection Commission 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Maheen Showkat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Vs IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Kaka Ram Vs Mangat Ram 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Bandipora Vs Nazir Ahmad Teli 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Daljit Singh Vs Dhanwant Kour 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Muyeeb Shafi Ganie Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Babu Ram vs Tata Project Ltd. Residential Manager and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Mohammad Shafi Dar Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Mangal Singh Vs Balbir Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Dr. Mohammad Riyaz Latoo and another Vs SKIMS & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Jaswant Singh Vs J&K State Road Transport Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

The Cooperative Market Society Limited Bishnah Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Kewal Krishan Vs Union Territory of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Virender Kumar Chawla Vs Neha Chalwa 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

SHOWKAT AHMAD MIR Vs NIGHAT BEGUM 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Arjun Balraj Mehta Vs UT of Ladakh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Judgments/Orders:

Labour Commissioner Competent To Review Ex-Parte Awards Passed Under Workmen's Compensation Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sahil Gupta Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Labour Commissioner is competent to review his ex-parte orders, while hearing an application to set aside such ex-parte award.

A bench of Justice M.A Chowdhary clarified that given the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC), as provided under Rule 31 of the J&K Workmen's Compensation Rules of 1972, the Labor Commissioner is competent to review ex-parte awards.

Treating Employee's Absence As 'Dies-Non' A Penalty Measure, Cannot Be Imposed Without Affording Hearing: J&K High Court

Case Title:Abdul Rahim Ganai V/s State of JK and others (SRTC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a period of willful absence from duty can be treated as 'Dies-Non', but such a measure of penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a fair enquiry and affording the concerned employee an opportunity to be heard.

For the period declared as 'Dies Non', an employee would not be eligible for allowance nor would it be counted for retiral benefits.

Justice Sindhu Sharma said,

“The order adverse to the employee for willfully remaining absent after expiry leave cannot be passed without initiated any disciplinary proceedings. The respondent is competent to direct the period of willful absence be treated as Dies Non but it would be as a measure of penalty and such order cannot be passed without holding enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner”.

Subjective Satisfaction Under Preventive Detention Jurisdiction Cannot Rule Out Objectivity: J&K HC Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Waqas Riyaz Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention order of a detenue citing serious concerns about the grounds of detention being based on a "caricatured" opinion instead of an objective assessment.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has observed,

“If taken as it is, then any law abiding citizen can be stereotyped at the hands of law and enforcement agency/authority for the sake of being put behind the bars not for any penal act of omission and commission on his/her part amounting to violation of law but just for the reason that law and enforcement agency/authority is so profiling a person to be a bad person”.

J&K HC Allows Minors Plea For Passport Rectification Upon Attaining Majority, Directs Adherence To Ministry of External Affairs Guidelines

Case Title: MOHAMMAD BIN SHORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JK) 4

Allowing a plea seeking directions to effect changes in the date of birth in the passport the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that an applicant seeking a change in the date of birth in their passport must do so within a reasonable time, specifically within five years from the date of the passport's issuance, with certain exceptions for minors.

Press Should Refrain From Publishing Defamatory Content Against Private Citizen If It Serves No Public Interest: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh Vs Dr. Kamal Saini.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Cautioning the press from publishing contents that are manifestly defamatory against an individual, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that content published by the press should be duly verified and there should be sufficient reason to believe that it is true and serves the public good.

Debunking “Truth” as a defence for publishing defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved, Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul remarked,

“...The press has the right to expose cases of corruption and irregularities in public bodies as a custodian of public interest but such reporting should be based on irrefutable evidence, published after due inquiry and verification from the concerned sources and should include the version of the person or authority being commented upon”.

O.6 R.17 CPC | Adopt Liberal Approach To Amendments Before Trial Unless It Causes Irreparable Prejudice To Opposite Party: J&K High Court

Case Title: Haja @ Hajira Bano Vs Gh. Mohammad Ahangar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must adopt a liberal approach and allow amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) unless they cause irreparable prejudice to the other party or change the very nature of the suit.

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary added that whenever an amendment is sought before the commencement of a trial, a lenient view may be taken keeping in mind that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up by amendment.

LOCs Are Coercive Measures Interfering With Liberty, To Be Used Exceptionally Only When Accused Deliberately Evades Justice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Aman Gehlot Vs V/s Anti-Corruption Bureau (Central Kashmir) & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

While quashing a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a businessman facing corruption charges, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that LOCs are not routine measures but exceptional tools used only when an accused deliberately evades justice or poses a flight risk.

A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma observed,

“An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant”.

Expedited Resolution In Summary Suits Cannot Come At The Cost Of Defendant's Fair Opportunity To Defend Himself: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Altaf Mir V/ S Firdous Ahmad Mir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

Shedding light on the principles governing the grant of leave to defend a summary suit, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while the objective of summary suits is to expedite commercial disputes, this cannot come at the cost of denying the defendant a fair opportunity to defend himself.

No Amount Of Delay Can Extinguish Constitutional Right To Property: J&K High Court Upholds Compensation For Claimants Dispossessed 45 Yrs Ago

Case Title: GHULAM AHMAD BHAT & OTHERS Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the state to compensate landowners whose property was arbitrarily seized 45 years ago. The court declared that no amount of delay can extinguish the fundamental right to property, granting long-awaited relief to the petitioners.

"Singh" Or "Kour" Surnames Not Mandatory For Sikh Identity: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Gurudwara Committee Election

Case Title: Sukhjit Singh Vs UT of J & K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court made it clear that having "Singh" or "Kour" as surnames is not mandatory to be recognized as a Sikh person.

“There are many people, who do not have “Sikh or Kour” their Sir names, but still they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism. This aspect of the matter has gone in detail by the appellate authority and this Court concur with the finding recorded by the appellate authority and do not find any legal infirmity with the same”, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal recorded.

Powers U/S 482 CrPC Not Revisional/Appellate, Terms Like "Abuse Of Process" Or "Securing Ends Of Justice" Don't Grant Unfettered Discretion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Iftikar Ahmad Vs Abdul Majeed

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Reiterating the restricted nature of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing criminal complaints the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that this exceptional power cannot be used for detailed evidence evaluation or as a substitute for appeals or revisions.

Person Not Possessing Prescribed Qualifications Can't Be Appointed Even If They Qualify All Tests Laid Down For Recruitment: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vishal Khajuria V/s Staff Selection Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that even if a candidate scores well in recruitment tests, they cannot be appointed if they lack the basic eligibility criteria.

“The eligibility for recruitment goes to the root of selection and the person, who does not possess the prescribed qualification, cannot be appointed against the post even if he has qualified all the tests laid down for such recruitment”, the court said.

Private Law Remedies Against Public Bodies Not Enforceable Through Writ Jurisdiction Unless Their Functions Had Public Element: J&K High Court

Case Title: Maheen Showkat Vs UT of J&K

Citation; 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Distinguishing between public and private law matters and their redressal mechanisms the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that private remedies cannot be enforced through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even against public authorities.

A bench of Justice Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that even if a body performing a duty makes it amenable to writ jurisdiction, all its functions are not subject to judicial review except those with a public element therein.

“Witnesses Being Threatened To Depose In Accused's Favour, Counsels Unwilling To Take Case": J&K High Court Transfers Advocate Babar Qadri's Murder Trial From Srinagar To Jammu

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the transfer of the trial in the murder case of Advocate Babar Qadri from Srinagar to the court of Special Judge Designated under NIA Act in Jammu. The decision comes in response to concerns over witness safety and the need for a fair and impartial trial.

Qadri, a prominent lawyer was fatally attacked at his residence in Srinagar, on September 24, 2020. The attack, carried out by unknown terrorists, involved firing upon Qadri, leaving him dead.

Determinable Contracts Not Specifically Enforceable, Injunction Cannot Be Granted To Prevent Breach: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Vs IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Shedding light on the nature of determinable contracts, their enforcement under the Specific Relief Act, and the applicability of injunctions on them, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that when a contract is determinable and cannot be specifically enforced, no injunction against termination and enforcement of the contract can be issued.

Judgments/Orders:

Court's Observations In Interim Relief Applications Are Tentative & Temporary, Not Final Opinion On Merits Of Case: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kaka Ram Vs Mangat Ram

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Clarifying that observations made by a court while considering an application for interim relief are tentative and temporary, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the character of these observations is not to be construed as a final expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case.

“While considering an application for interim relief, be it the trial court or an appellate court, while making any observation or recording any findings qua the controversy involved in the case, such observations or findings recorded are always tentative and temporary in nature and character being not final expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case”, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani recorded.

[Payment Of Wages Act] Employer Responsible For Wage Payment If Contractor Fails To Make Such Payment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Bandipora Vs Nazir Ahmad Teli

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Reaffirming the employer's primary responsibility for wage payment under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to make payment of all wages required to be made under the Act in case the contractor or the person designated by the employer fails to make such payment.

[O.7 R.14 CPC] Failure to Produce Necessary Document Doesn't Automatically Lead To Rejection Of Suit, Court Holds Discretion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Daljit Singh Vs Dhanwant Kour

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that failing to produce documents during a proceeding under Rule 14(3) of Order 7 CPC doesn't lead to automatic rejection of the suit. It noted that the Court under this provision, holds the authority to permit the submission of these documents at a subsequent stage.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “..It can be said that the failure to produce the documents as required by Rule 14 does not entail either rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit, but the only penalty for failure to produce the documents is laid down in Sub-rule (3), which envisages that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to produce such documents without the leave of the Court”.

Likelihood Of Getting Bail No Ground To Invoke Public Safety Act, Authority Must Challenge Bail Order Before Higher Forum: J&K High Court

Case Title: Muyeeb Shafi Ganie Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Quashing a public detention order under the Public Safety Act (PSA), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the importance of due process and criticized authorities for resorting to preventive detention instead of challenging bail.

If authorities fear a released individual might resume criminal activities, they should oppose their bail application or challenge a potential bail grant in higher courts. Preventive detention, the court emphasized, should not be a knee-jerk reaction based solely on the possibility of bail.

High Court At Designated 'Venue' Has Jurisdiction, J&K High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

Case Title: Babu Ram vs Tata Project Ltd. Residential Manager and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench comprising Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh affirmed that when parties specify a particular location as the venue for arbitration proceedings, that location effectively becomes the seat of arbitration. Consequently, only courts with jurisdiction over that designated venue possess the authority to hear and decide on matters pertaining to the arbitration agreement, the court said.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail To State Cooperative Bank's Ex-Chairman In Alleged 233 Crore Money Laundering Scam

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Dar Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to former J&K State Cooperative Bank Chairman Muhammad Shafi Dar, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an alleged Rs 233 crore money laundering scam.

Allowing Dar's bail petition a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“The petitioner is well within his right to say and agitate that so long as the decision to grant loan on behalf of the J&K State Cooperative Bank, Kashmir, Srinagar is to be reckoned as having been taken by the Board of Management then the liability and the responsibility for the said decision cannot be individualized to the petitioner alone and absolving the rest of the board members”.

Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Court Can Add Or Remove Parties For Determination Of Dispute Without Protraction Or Inconvenience: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mangal Singh Vs Balbir Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Highlighting the court's mandate under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the court has the power to bring all interested parties into a lawsuit for a comprehensive and conclusive resolution.

Clarifying the position on Order 1 Rule(2) Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“That though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on an application or without application of either party, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of such a party would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and conclusively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit”.

"Timely Administration Necessary To Promote Rule Of Law": J&K High Court Directs SKIMS To Resume Associate Prof Selection Stalled Since 2022

Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Riyaz Latoo and another Vs SKIMS & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) to resume the selection process for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, which has been stalled since September 2022.

Emphasising the crucial role of timely administrative decision-making in upholding the Rule of Law, a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“ A timely administrative decision making/taking serves to promote the Rule of Law whereas a procrastination and avoidance of the administrative decision making/taking demotes the Rule of Law”.

Doctrine Of Estoppel Can Be Viewed As Substantive Rule Of Law Since It Helps Create Or Deny Rights Which Would Not Exist Without It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jaswant Singh Vs J&K State Road Transport Corporation,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Underscoring the significance of estoppel in safeguarding individual's rights against arbitrary actions by employers, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that in cases where statutory denial of rights does not occur, estoppel can validate claims and bar parties from denying previously affirmed facts.

A bench of Justice MA Chowdhary observed,

“Estoppel though a branch of the law of evidence is also capable of being viewed as a substantive rule of law in so far as it helps to create or defeat rights, which would not exist or be taken away but for that doctrine. Of course, an estoppel cannot have the effect of conferring upon a person a legal status expressly denied to him by a statute. But where such is not the case a right may be claimed as having come into existence on the basis of estoppel and it is capable of being enforced or defended as against the person precluded from denying it.”

Payment Of Gratuity Act | Statutory Remedy Of Appeal Against Award Can't Be Circumvented To Escape Pre-Deposit Requirement: J&K High Court

Case Title: The Cooperative Market Society Limited Bishnah Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the statutory remedy of appeal against an award passed by a Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, cannot be bypassed by approaching the High Court directly.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar clarified that the remedy of appeal against awards passed by Controlling Authorities, as prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be circumvented to avoid the essential pre-deposit requirement, crucial for the admission of appeals by the Appellate Authority.

J&K HC Orders Fresh Probe In Decade-Old Corruption Case Due To Flawed Investigation, Says No Legal Provision Prohibited IO From Reviewing Material

Case Title: Kewal Krishan Vs Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Ordering a fresh investigation into a decade old corruption case due to a flawed initial probe by the investigating agency, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said it is extremely unreasonable on the part of the investigating agency to ignore examination of any evidence that is presented by the complainant to supported his accusations.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

“if any evidence is sought to be presented by the complainant, which may or may not assist the investigating agency, but it is entirely unreasonable on part of the investigating agency to ignore its examination during investigation process. There is no legal provision that prohibits the investigating officer from reviewing the material if it is essential for uncovering the truth”.

[S.47 CPC] Power Of Executing Court Limited To Specific Questions On Execution, Discharge, Or Satisfaction Of Decree: J&K High Court

Case Title: Virender Kumar Chawla Vs Neha Chalwa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Highlighting the limitations on the powers of an executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the powers of executing courts are confined to resolving issues directly related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decrees.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has clarified,

“The scope of Section 47 is that it empowers the Executing Court to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and not the questions which ought to have been raised during trial, at the time of filing of written statement, framing of issues or arguments”.

Court Must Curb Down On Parties Attempts To Take Different Stands Before Different Forums, Perjury Must Be Nipped In The Bud: J&K High Court

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a landowner claiming compensation for land acquired for highway expansion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that legal forums must not devolve into battlegrounds for tactical maneuvers.

Underscoring the Judiciary's duty to curb perjury and false statements a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,

“The Courts must effectively intervene and nip the evil of perjury and false statements in the bud. Where a party takes different stand in different Courts and/or say at different stages/places to defeat the effort of other party to get benefit therefrom such an effort must be curbed down by the Courts effectively by binding him with his earlier statement(s) and his plea of raising a dispute should not be heard nor entertained”.

[S.97 CrPC] Father's Custody of Minor Child No Ground To Issue Search Warrant Unless Confinement Proven Illegal: J&K High Court

Case Title: SHOWKAT AHMAD MIR Vs NIGHAT BEGUM

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Clarifying that a father's custody of his child cannot be considered illegal confinement under Section 97 of the Cr. P. C the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the father of minor children having their custody cannot be per se said to be an offence for which the said provision could be invoked.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored,

“Unless it is shown from the material on record that confinement of a person is illegal in nature and it amounts to an offence, a Magistrate cannot exercise his powers under Section 97 of the Cr. P. C and issue a search warrant for production of such person”.

S.50 Wildlife Protection Act | Police Empowered to Tackle Wildlife Crimes, Investigation & Seizure Powers Granted: J&K High Court

Case Title: Arjun Balraj Mehta Vs UT of Ladakh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Affirming the authority of police officers to investigate offenses under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a Police officer is sufficiently empowered to investigate the offenses committed under the Act and is hence equally competent to search and seize the offending articles in such matters.