Guwahati Court June 1955 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.
Laisram Bokul Singh and Kondolei Singh Vs. State of Manipur Through It ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-28-1955
Brij Narain, J.1. This is an application under Article 226, Constitution of India for obtaining a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order appropriate to the circumstances directing the respondents to give effect to this Court's order dated 29-7-1954 in respect of G. C. Notes of Rs. 7,000/- and for giving effect to the order of the learned Sub Judge in civil suit No. 29 of 1954 by returning the said amount forthwith to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was charged and tried by Shri O. Niladhwaja Singh, Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner in G. R. case No. 675 of 1955 for cheating the complainant respondent 4 of Rs. 7500/-and was convicted and sentenced under Section 420, I.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine to a further term of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment on 6-3-1954.An appeal was filed in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur and in this appeal No 20 of 1954 the petitioner was acquitted on 31-3-1954. Th...
Mainal Haque and ors. Vs. Ganga Prosad Sarkar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-08-1955
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts.2. The reference arises out of a criminal case No. 50C of 1953 under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were found guilty and convicted under Section 447, Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs, 20/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. The petitioners were also convicted under Section 143 but no separate sentences were passed under this head of the charge.3. The case for the complainant was that he had a plot of land measuring 41 bighas at Bariabari. It was his ancestral land and it had fallen to his share. He had grown cheena, Khasari, Kalai and paddy. The accused (petitioners) came in a body, trespassed on the land and damaged his standing crop. The accused claimed Ejmali proprietary rights over the land in dispute. The petit...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›