Guwahati Court August 1957 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.
Union Territory of Tripura Vs. Marfat Ali and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-09-1957
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This order governs this appeal and also Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1956, both- of which are appeals against orders of acquittal, and have been preferred in the name of the Union Territory of Tripper (i. e, by the Government) under Section 417 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This appeal arises out of a Sessions trial involving charges under Section 302 and some other sections of the IPC while the other appeal arises out of a case tried by a Magistrate of the left class for an offence under Section 403, IPC2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of both the appeals, and that objection consists of two points:i) That there was no direction by the State Government as required by Section 417 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.ii) That they have not been preferred by a Public Prbsecutor as required by the said Sub-section of Section 417.3. It is an admitted fact that the powers of a State Government under Section 417(1) have been vested in the Chief ...
Beni Lal Saha and ors. Vs. Pranab Kumar Sen, Inspector, Central Excise ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-08-1957
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This revision petition arises out of C. R. case No. 284 of 1954 on the file of the Massif Magistrate, Belonia, in which cognizance was taken under Sections 177, 224 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. At the relevant time the case was on the file of the S. D. M., and was fixed for hearing toe prosecution evidence before charge.2. On 5-8-1955 the complainant was absent, but the accused persons were present, and the learned S. D. M. therefore dismissed the case and discharged the accused (presumably under Section 259,, Cr. P. C). The same day later in the afternoon the complainant appeared and the S. D. M. being satisfied that he was prevented from reaching in time due to floods he reviewed his previous order and restored the case. His reference to Section 259, Cr.PC as giving him this power of review-is not at all correct, but it certainly goes to show that the learned Magistrate was purporting to act throughout under that section.3. The revision petition against the o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›