Guwahati Court June 1952 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.
Nayan Ram Das and anr. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Das
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-17-1952
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Cr. P. C. from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, U. A. D. It -arises out of a complaint case. The complaint was under Sections 352, 427, I. P. C. and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The accused was however summoned only under Section 24 of the C. T. Act. 2. The case of the complainant was that the two accused who are the petitioners had ten buffaloes. These buffaloes entered his paddy field and caused damage to his crops. He was taking the buffaloes to the cattle-pound when they were forcibly rescued by the accused. He estimated his loss at Rs. 125/-. 3. The accused were summarily tried, found guilty and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10/- each. They assailed the propriety of their convictions by a petition of revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred the case recommending that the convictions be quashed. The reasons in support of the recommendation are:...
P.K. Subbiah Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-10-1952
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. The petitioner has come to this Court on the Revision Side against the order of the Sessions Judge, Tripura, dismissing his appeal from an order of trial Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 161, Penal Code and sentencing him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine the petitioner was to undergo a further period of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner who was Executive Engineer of Assam Agartala Road Project (with Head quarters at Agartala), was that he accepted a bribe of Rs. 5100/- from one Sushil Kumar Ghosh (P.W. 2) a contractor under him. It is suggested that in the beginning when the contractor applied for work, the Engineer told him that the work would be given to him if he would agree to pay 5 per cent of the bill dues. It this the contractor agreed. His name was entered as a B Class contractor with an understanding that he would be promoted t...
State Vs. Gedeng Sut and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-09-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., under the provisions of Section 307 (1), Criminal P. C., arising out of a trial held with the aid of a Jury, in which two persons were found guilty unanimously by the Jury. Accused Gedeng Sut, who has appealed, was found guilty under Section 304, part I, Penal Code, read with Section 34, Penal Code, and the accused Kandura Sut was also found guilty under the same section read with Section 34, Penal Code. Two other accused persons who were also tried along with Gedeng Sut and Kandura Sut, were acquitted by the Jury. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference being of the opinion that the verdict of the Jury against the accused Kandura is 'unreasonable, inconsistent and altogether' perverse.' 2. The case for the prosecution was that on the morning of 1-4-1951, the deceased Molow Hazarika set out from his house with a plough and a buffalo to cultivate the land in the nearby chapari. He was accompan...
Jata Hadia Vs. Mylliem State and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1952
Deka, J. This is a matter purporting to be one under Rule 36 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the administered areas in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, and filed on behalf of one Jata Hadia who was refused settlement of land by the Siem of Mylliem State. The appeal or revision, whatever we may call it, is against the order of the A. D. C., Khasi and Jaintia Hills, dated 25-7-51. After hearing the learned advocate and perusal of the record, it appears to me that this matter is purely one confined to settlement of land, and cannot be said to be a civil dispute. Rule 36 of the Administration of Justice Rules for Khasi and Jaintia Hills has no application to revenue matters, nor is the High Court entitled, even in its revenue jurisdiction, to exercise any power of superintendence over settlements made by any of the Siems in Khasi and Jaintia Hills. In this view of the case, I hold that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter, and the petition must, th...
Haridas Tapadar Vs. Sailendra Chandra De (Minor) and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1952
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and rent. At this stage there is no dispute about the rent. The trial Court disallowed the prayer for ejectment on the ground that a valid notice determining the tenancy had not been sent to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge modified the trial Court's decree on the point and decreed ejectment, holding that the notice sent satisfied the requirements of law.2. The facts bearing on the question of the validity of notice may now be stated. The land in suit belonged to one Kopilram Deka. It was purchased by the minor plaintiffs. Defendant was admittedly a tenant at the time of the purchase. It is also admitted that the defendant had been in occupation of the land for a number of years before plaintiffs purchased it. The defendant pleaded that the notice was not valid as the tenancy was from year to year and ended with the Bengali year, which ended at the end of the month of 'Magh'. There was also an alternative pl...
Habiram Deka Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. On 29.5.S2, I issued a Rule calling. upon the authorities concerned to show cause (1) why the petitioner should not be set at liberty forthwith, and (2) why contempt proceedings should not be drawn up against them for not abiding by this Court's order, dated 22.5.52. On 22.5.52, I set aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be released unless he was otherwise liable to be detained. It appears that the order of detention was served upon the petitioner when he was undergoing trial for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 2(7), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947.2. At the heaving of the petition against the order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV [4] of 1950 as amended by Act IV [4] of 1951), it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the case against the petitioner under Section 2(7), A.M.P.C. Act was withdrawn in January 1952. The decision of this Court on the pe...
U. Kino Kharbangar Vs. U. Kyron and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-04-1952
Deka, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and gone through the papers. I find no reasons to condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal and it is doubtful whether Section 5, Indian Limitation Act at all applies to such proceedings as provided under the rules of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. In my opinion, it does not. We are governed by Rule 26 of the Khasi States (Administration of justice) Order, 1950 which says that an appeal shall lie within the sixty days of the date of decision exclusive of the time needed for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against to the High Court from any original or appellate decision of the Deputy Commissioner except in matters involving customary laws. In this case, the order appealed against is that of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 2-4-51 and if the time taken for obtaining a copy of the order is taken into consideration. 6-6-51 is the last date on which this appeal ought to have been pre...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›