Guwahati Court March 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.
Surath Chandra Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-13-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. For the reasons stated in the letter of reference, the order of conviction passed in this case cannot be upheld.2. The reference of directed against an order, dated 4-4-57, passed by Mr. Thomas, Magistrate with first class , powers, Gauhati, convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 34 of the Police Act. The order runs as. follows: Accused Surath Chandra Dauka produced undler arrest for obstructing public traffic. Substance of allegations explained to the accused, who pleads guilty and convicted under Section 34, Police Act, and fined Rs. 50/-, in default, 30 days simple imprisonmentThe accused in his petition moving! against the order made various allegations repudiating the fact that the charge was explained to him or that he had pleaded guilty to the charge. He asserted that he was merely an office assistant in the firm and his duties did not include the management of the workshop or any matter connected1 therewith. The charge was for obstruction t...
C.E. Mc Intosh Vs. Nirmal Chandra Sur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These two references have been made by the learned Sessions Judge of Cachar for setting aside orders dated 5-1-57 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, refusing to take action against the opposite party under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the points involved are almost similar, they are both disposed of by this judgment.2. The applicant in both the cases is the Manager of the Rampore Tea Estate in the district of Cachar. He alleged that the opposite parties were employees of the tea estate and during the period of their employment they had been given residential quarters. Subsequently, on some ground, to which it is unnecessary to refer, it appears that the tea estate dispensed with the services of the opposite parties and asked them to vacate the quarters in their occupation; but the opposite parties refused to do so.It was further alleged that in addition to their refusal to vacate the quarters, which they were lawfully bound...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›