Guwahati Court February 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Muklesur Rahman and anr. Vs. the King
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an appeal from jail preferred by one Muklesur Rahman and Habibur Rahman who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, A. L, D., Under Section 801, Part II, read with B. si, Penal Code, upon a trial held with the aid of a jury. Agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, the learned Judge found the two accused guilty and sentenced the accused Mukleaur Rahman to rigorous imprisonment for five years, and Habibur Rahman to rigorous imprisonment for four years, Under Section 804, Part II, read with Section 34, Penal Code.2. We admitted the appeal to hearing is order to satisfy ourselves whether Section 84, Penal Code, was applicable in point of law to a case when the accused persons are convicted and sentenced Under Section 304, Part n read with Section 34 Penal Code.3. The question of common intention is a question of fact, which was properly dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in his summing up to the Jury, and we, therefore, accept toe existence of ...
Nayan Chand Das Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-1950
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This petition of revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., dated 3 9-1949 by which what was virtually a petition of revision assailing the correctness of the orders of the Magistrate, let Glass, Silchar, dated the 19th and 21st April 1948, was rejected. The learned Sessions Judge disallowed the petition holding that be had no power to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182, which had been initiated in pursuance of the order of 10th April. The petitioner has come up to this Court on revision.2. On 29-3-1948, the petitioner reported to the officer-in-charge Silchar P. S., that his godown had been broken open on the previous night and that a considerable quantity of yarn had been stolen away. The usual police investigation followed and on 12 4-1948 a report embodying the result of the investigation was submitted to the Magistrate at Silchar. The Police Report was to the effect that the case under Section 457/...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›