Guwahati Court March 1952 Judgments

Sankar Lal Tewari Vs. Abdul Rahman

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This petition of revision is directed against an order of Mr. M.N. Khanikar, Magistrate, 1st Class, Gauhati, dated 28-10-1948 directing that a bailable warrant of arrest should issue against the petitioner. The warrant was ordered to be issued on a complaint by Abdul Rahman, the Opposite Party.2. Abdul Rahman's grievance as disclosed in the complaint was that the petitioner had reported to the police at Gauhati that on 1-9-1948 his son had been kidnapped by Abdul Rahman and some others. That on the same night at about 11 P.M., he accompanied the police to his house. The police asked him about the whereabouts of the missing son of Sankar Lal (the petitioner in this case). He pleaded ignorance but was arrested. His case is that the report made by Shankar Lal, petitioner, against him was false. He prayed for the prosecution of Sankar Lal under Section 211, I. P. C. It was on his complaint that a warrant of arrest was issued on 28-10-1948 against the petitioner.3....

Ambaram Haloi Vs. the State

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. Ambaram Haloi, appellant, was found guilty under Section 307, I.P.C., and was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. The trial was with the aid of a Jury.2. Stated briefly the prosecution case was that Titaram, complainant, and Ambaram, accused, belonged to two rival factions, of the village. There was a fight between the two parties a few months before the occurrence in question. In this light one man from each side was killed. The case arising out o that transaction was pending at the time of the trial in this case. It is said that Ambaram, accused, was not present at the time of that fight. He came back to the village some 15 days before the occurrence in question and since then was threatening to take revenge.3. On the 4th October 1950, Titaram, after taking his evening meal, went out of his house. He was going to the house of Prabin. The house of Prabin was at a short distance. He was carrying a 'Saki' (lamp) in his hand. He sat down to pass urine behind the house of a rel...

Abdul HussaIn and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commr. and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Deka, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of several persons whose specific interests in the land are not given, challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong dated 24-4-1951, wherein he says that 'eviction is to be carried out and possession given to the old settlers.....'. It appears from the order sheet that the Deputy Commissioner took this action on a report of the Sub-Deputy Collector of Dhing being Report No. 224 (D. O) dated 23-4-1951. That report deals with evictions of trespassers or encroachers as a body. Therefore we cannot exactly say who are the persons affected by this order except that the appellants claimed to be affected by it. 2. Mr. Ghose appearing for the appellants has urged before me that the order of the Deputy Commissioner itself would indicate that the land has been previously settled with some other persons and as such the order of eviction does not come under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules and in support of his contention he h...

Lalit Mohan Pal and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Deka, J.1. This is a petition for revision filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of four persons Lalit Mohan Pal, Srimanta Kumar Pal, Kripa Mohan Pal, and Kedar Mohan Pal against the conviction and sentence passed in Case No. 14550 of 1950 of the Silchar Court which were upheld by the appellate Court.2. All the petitioners were convicted under Section 341, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Lalit Pal in addition, was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. The other three accused Srimanta, Kripa and Kedar were convicted under Section 352, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. AH the accused persons were further directed under Section 106, Criminal P.C. to execute a bond for Rs. 200/- each with one surety for keeping the peace during the ...

Badal Samser Ali Vs. State

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. Badal, appellant and Chand Mea, his co-accused were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, U.A. Dts., under Section 395, I.P.C. Chand Mea was unanimously found guilty under Section 395 by the Jury. He was convicted for that offence and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years. He has not appealed. The Jury unanimously found Badal guilty also under Section 412, I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years. He has appealed.2. The case for the appellant as put before us is that mis-directions and non-directions bearing on the essential ingredients of the offence (Section 412) contained in the charge to the Jury have deprived the accused of the substance of a fair trial and the protection of law though it is not contended that the evidence did not disclose the case of a dacoity or that property was not stolen from the shop of the complainant Onkarmal.3. On the night following the 27th December, 1949 the shop house of Onkarmal Sarmah was the scene of a daco...

Lambodar Dowrah and ors. Vs. Priyanath Dowrah and

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. The three petitioners were convicted under Section 379, I.P.C., for reaping and taking away the paddy crop from land which was attached by an order of the Court under Section 145, Cr.P.C. They were sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 3 months in addition to a fine of Rs. 300/-, (in default each was to suffer R.I. for 3 months more). On appeal, the convictions were maintained but the learned Sessions Judge, U.A.D., remitted the sentence of imprisonment in each case. The sentence of fine was allowed to stand.2. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute about the land between the complainant Priyanath Dowrah and the accused. The complainant in his petition under Section 145, Cr.P.C., alleged that the opposite party consisting of 6 persons including the three petitioners were trying to take away the paddy sown by him after dispossessing him from the said land. It was in this proceeding that by a preliminary order of the Court, the land was attached. The order for t...

Lambodar Dowrah and ors. Vs. Priyanath Dowrah and

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1952CriLJ994

Ram Labhaya, J.1. The three petitioners were convicted under Section 379, I.P.C., for reaping and taking away the paddy crop from land which was attached by an order of the Court under Section 145, Cr.P.C. They were sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 3 months in addition to a fine of Rs. 300/-, (in default each was to suffer R.I. for 3 months more). On appeal, the convictions were maintained but the learned Sessions Judge, U.A.D., remitted the sentence of imprisonment in each case. The sentence of fine was allowed to stand.2. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute about the land between the complainant Priyanath Dowrah and the accused. The complainant in his petition under Section 145, Cr.P.C., alleged that the opposite party consisting of 6 persons including the three petitioners were trying to take away the paddy sown by him after dispossessing him from the said land. It was in this proceeding that by a preliminary order of the Court, the land was attached. The order for th...