Guwahati Court March 1954 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.
E. Muhon Singh and ors. Vs. Manipur State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. The above four appeals have arisen from the decision in sessions trial case No. 2 of 1953 by the Sessions Judge, Manipur, on 18-12-53 which resulted in conviction and sentence of the 4 appellants to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Bs. 100/- or in default one year's R. I. each, under Section 395, I.P.C.2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the night between 24/25-1-53, a dacoity was committed in the house of M. Tolchou Singh at Laimanai Basti by a gang of dacoits numbering 8 or 10. The above 4 appellants are alleged to belong to that gang,The occurrence took place at about 2 A.M. Tolchou Singh P. W. 2 was sleeping in his house along with his wife Kamini Devi and a son Nimai Singh aged 15 years. Ningthemjao Singh was also there as a guest for the night. According to Tolchou Singh P. W. 2 the front door of his house was being forcibly broken open when the sound awakened him. Immediately he found some 4 persons rushing towards him. He was at that time going to c...
Jagadindra Kishore Dev Barma Vs. Ardhendu Pal
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-11-1954
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. On a petition filed by Jagindra Kishore against the Opposite Party Ardhendu Pat and Sudhendu Pal, that the latter were running their Rice and Atta Mill in a manner as to cause annoyance to him, Shri A, Bhattarcharjee, Magistrate, 1st class, Sadar registered it under Section 144, Cr. P. C., and issued warning notice to the opposite party asking them to show cause on or before 24-11-53. The opposite party submitted their statement, objecting to the above order. After hearing arguments on behalf of both parties Who were represented by their Counsel, the learned Magistrate rejected the petition; finding that it was not a proper case under Section 144, Cr. P. C., and holding that the second party is in possession of their Mill in running condition and there is no apprehension of breach of peace unless the first party goes to stop the Mill possessed by the second party.2. On a motion filed by the petitioner the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›