Guwahati Court January 1958 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.
Haisnam Baruniton Singh Vs. Thokchom Ningol Haisnam Ongbi Bhani Devi a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-30-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This is a some what unusual application under Section 561-A of the Cr. P. Code for quashing the proceedings under Section 494 IPO that are going against the applicant and some others in the court of the Magistrate, at the instance of his first wife the complainant,2. It is an admitted fact that the complainant Thokcho Ningol Haisnam Ongbi Bhani Devi was legally married to the applicant, the main accused, in 1952. The applicant, who is an Assistant Engineer in the PWD of the Manipur Administration, again married in 1956, Thounaojam Ningol Haisnam Ongbi Ibechaobi Devi, one of the accused in the criminal case, which led to the institution of the above-mentioned prosecution.According to the applicant, he had divorced the complainant according to the prevailing custom in 1954 and if that is proved, and found to be a valid divorce, then admittedly he committed no offence when he married the other lady in 1956. I mention it incidentally only, but we are not concerned with ...
Habibur Rahman Khan Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-1958
G. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, convicting the petitioner under Section 3 (3) of the Indian Passport Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs, 50/-. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner Habibur Rahman came to India on the basis of a Passport. The period of his stay under the Visa however expired and he continued to reside at Singimari village under Phulbari Police Station, According to the prosecution, he thus violated Rule 6 of the Indian Passport Rules of 1950 and he was sent up for trial under Section 3 (3) of the Indian Passport Act. Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act provides as follows:The Central Government may make rules requiring that persons entering India shall be in possession of passports, and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose.Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides for rule making power for certain specific matters. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 then provides a...
Demkholum Vs. Helkhosem Kuku
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This is an appeal with special leave against the order of acquittal under Section 417 (3) of the Cr.PC2. The case which was started on a complaint was for an offence punishable under Section 352 IPC which is triable as a summons case. The case after pending for an inordinately long time came to be transferred to the file of the Magistrate who passed the order of acquittal. On receipt of the case the said Magistrate passed an order on 13-2-1957 that the parties be summoned for 8-4-57, because obviously the parties had no notice about the court or the date of hearing.On 8-4-57, the parties were absent when the case was called and the summons to the complainant having not been received back the Magistrate ordered re-issue of summons to the complainant and fixed the case for 15-5-57. Later on the same day the Bench clerk put up the summons issued to the complainant for 8-4-57, and it was found that the complainant had been already served. The report on the summons also ...
Mohammad HussaIn Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. (Criminal Revision No. 93/56. :) The petitioner in this case was convicted under Rule 6 of the rules framed under the Passport Act 1920 and he has been sentenced to a fine of Rs 30/ , in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He contends that the conviction under the rule is unwarranted and illegal. It is stated that the petitioner obtained a passport on 26th January, 1953 for rntrv into India which is due to expire on the 25th January, 1958. He also obtained a corresponding visa in respect of his stay in this country which was renewed from time to time; but renewal thereof was refused after the 12th March 1956. The petitioner in spite of this refusal continued to stay in this State when ne was arrested at Golaghat on 9th June, 1956 for contravention of the above rule and tried and convicted as aforesaid.2. Rule 6 (a) of the Indian Passport Rules 1950 provides that any person who contravenes or abets the contravention of the provisions of rule 3 ...
Bhanu Lal Das and ors. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-10-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. Appellants (1) Bhanulal Das, (2) Jogendra Marak, his brother, (3) Nagendra Marak, all of Madhuban village and (4) Naman Marak of Mahishmara village were tried along with another (who was acquitted) before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tripura, who convicted them for dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rule I, for a term of five years.2. The dacoity which was not disputed and for which there was ample evidence, was committed by unknown persons, at the cloth shop of Pra-bhat Datta (P.W. 1) between 8-30 and 9 P, M. on 24-8-1954 at Shekerkut village which is about 9 miles from the Police station at Agartala and is situated on a motorable road connecting it with Agartala.The shop in question is located in the Bazar at Shekerkut, and there me other shops in its vicinity and at the time of commission of the dacoity a gas lamp was burning in the shop, There were some others also sitting with P.W. 1 in the shop, when the daco...
Shanu Mea Vs. Nandu Mea and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-07-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This is a Criminal reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Tripura under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which must be accepted.2. The circumstances giving rise to the reference may be briefly stated thus: On the complaint of the present petitioner and after considering the report made by the Police after enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, took action under Section 145, Sub-section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as It stood before the amendments Order 1955 (Act No. 26 Order 1955). The case was fixed for examination of witnesses Order 3-12-1955.On that date the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings as the petitioner was absent, and had therefore failed to prove his case. But the order sheet of that date also shows that an application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the petitioner but because it was not supported by a medical certificate, the Magistrate refused to act on it.An examination of that application shows that it was...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›