Guwahati Court August 1956 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.
Panshi Khullakpa and ors. Vs. O/C Wing H.Q., 4th Bn.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-28-1956
Datta, J.C.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge manipur, with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate convicting the four applicants (accused) under Section 447, I.P.C., and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- each be set aside, as the trial was illegal.2. The case was tried as a summons case, and when the applicants were called upon to show cause under Section 242, Criminal P. C., they admitted having entered upon, and cultivated the land as they claimed the land to belong to them, even though they had knowledge that the land had been allotted to the Assam Rifles. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that he did not accept the statement of the accused as an admission of the offence and did not convict them on its basis, and in that he was right, because the statement made by the accused can by no means be taken to mean that the accused intended to plead or were pleading guilty to the charge.But the error into ...
Nagendra Nath Datta Choudhury Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Deka, J.1. This reference is from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills in connexion with the prosecution of accused Nagendra Nath Datta Choudhury in G. B. Case No. 49 of 1954 of the Magistrate's Court at Shillong. The case for the prosecution is that while the accused was serving as an Accountant in the Pasteur Institute at Shillong in the year 1949 had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 430/- which represented the fund of the Pasteur Institute.The case was started on an information lodged with the police by the Director of the Pasteur Institute who investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet. The misappropriation is alleged to be detected in the year 1954 when the accused was re-employed after superannuation and working in the Pasteur Institute.The prosecution had already examined six witnesses and a charge has been framed against the accused Nagendra Nath Datta Choudhury under Section 409, Indian Penal Code as he is alleged to have defalcated this amount ...
Basanta GohaIn Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-09-1956
Deka, J.1. The appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge who agreed with and accepted the unanimous verdict of the jury. The appellant Basanta Gohain and his brother Nandeswar were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. Code and committed to the Court of-Sessions for trial for causing the death of late Maneswar Gogoi, by an assault on the night of 11th December 1952.2. The prosecution case was that on the evening of 11th December, 1952 there was a feast known as 'Na-khowa' ceremony in the house of P. W. 4 Sopin Barua of village Bagdung Bharaluagaon to Which he invited some of his co-villagers and the family of Maneswar who was related to him through his son's marriage.Maneswar came to the feast with his younger sister P. W. 2 Mst. Labhoti Gogoi and his brother Budheswar (P. W. 1) joined them a little later at Sopin's place. It is alleged that while the people had gather...
Katai Mia and ors. Vs. Sukhamayee Chaudhurani
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal. It arises from a suit for a declaration of title to and possession of the land in suit. 2. The case of plaintiff-respondent was that she had jote settlement of the land through her son, Sri Nitva Mangal Chaudhury, from the Khajanchi Bari Zemindars of the Sylhet District. In 1347 B. S. she mortgaged the land to defendant No. 1, Katai Mia and Farjan Ali father of defendants 2 to 5 for a sum of Rs. 210/-. The mortgage was 'Khai Khalasi' viz, usufructuary. She asked the defendants to hand over the land to her as the mortgage stood extinguished by operation of law. They declined to hand over. Her suit was for recovery of possession without any payment of money. 3. The suit was resisted by defendants. The defence set up was that plaintiff had parted with all her interest in the property. Land in suit had been sold to Farjan Ali and to Katai Mia. The consideration for each sale was Rs. 100/-. Defendants had been in possession under the sale...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›