Guwahati Court May 1960 Judgments
Thokehom Angou Singh Vs. the Union Territory of Manipur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-14-1960
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1.This is an application filed by Shri Thokchom Angou Singh under Sections 561-A/435 and 439, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the three orders passed by the District Magistrate, Manipur, under Section 144, Cr.P.C. on 25-4-1960 and for quashing the proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 2 of 1960 against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the said orders.2. The three orders were produced as Annex-tires A, B and C. They were challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. But I admitted the petition only on two of the grounds, namely, that the said orders were made by the District Magistrate without giving any specific or definite area to be covered by the said orders in contravention in Section 144, Cr.P.C. and further that the said orders were made generally in contravention of Section 144, Cr.P.C.When the matter was taken up for hearing after the issue of notice to the respondents, the petitioner did not press his case as ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jalil Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-1960
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Cachar, Silchar under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed.2. The facts as set out in the judgment of the court below are that on the 26th November 1957 an order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar directing the petitioner to leave the limits of the District of Cachar within one month of the receipt of the order. The order was served on the petitioner on the 1st December 1957. The order purports to have been issued under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act in the exercise of the powers delegated to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar under Section 12 of the Act by the Governor of Assam. The petitioner is described as a Pakistan national in the order. There is no dispute that the order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar and was du...
Tag this Judgment!Dojakhai, Chief of Ningthiching Vs. Khamjathang Gangte and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-1960
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 52/1/1959 by which he confirmed the conviction under Section 379 I.P.C. of the petitioner and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 80/- passed by the S.D.C., Churachandpur in Criminal Case No. 14-C of 1959. The first respondent herein filed a complaint on 17-11-58 against the petitioner stating that the complainant had a land known as Nalon land which was granted for settlement in his favour by an order dated 17-3-56 passed by the S.D.C. Churachandpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 208-C of 1955-50, that he had cut ekra grass from the said field and kept it in the sun for drving. and that) on 10-11-58 at about 8-00 a.m. the petitioner without the consent and knowledge of the complainant took away 70 Ipots of grass worth about Rs. 105/-.It was a warrant case and the first respondent examined himself and 2 witnesses in support of his case to show that the grass was cut by h...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Motaleb Vs. Garo Hills District Council and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-02-1960
H. Deka, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioner Abdul Motaleb on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of an appropriate nature quashing the order of his dismissal from service, served on him by the Secretary, Executive Committee of line Garo Hills District Council.2. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a mandal (village surveyor) with effect from the date of joining under the Garo Hills District Council in the scale of pay of Rs. 40 rising up to Rs. 55 per month with other allowances as admissible under the rules and was placed in charge of lot No. VIII-2 under the management and control of the district council, On 10 April 1958 the petitioner was served with a notice terminating his appointment with effect from 11 May 1958. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up to this Court and has challenged the validity thereof under Article 311 of the Constitution.3. The important point in this case to be decided is whether the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›