Guwahati Court March 1964 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.
State Vs. Ganga Ram Kalita and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-09-1964
C.S. Nayudu, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate Kamrup, Gauhati, calling into question the procedure followed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barpeta, in this case.2. The facts may be briefly stated. There was a chargesheet filed against the accused persons, 9 in number, in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barpeta. The Magistrate apparently called for a report from the Police and on receipt of the final report, ordered the discharge of the accused persons on 26.6.61. Subsequently on 22.8.61 without any frech chargesheet or complaint, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate decided to proceed afresh against the accused persons, and ordered summonses to be issued to them, fixing a later date for evidence. It is this procedure that has been followed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate that is questioned in this reference.3. Under Section 251-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Section 173 a...
Saruram Keot Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
S.K. Dutta, J.1. This is a revision petition. The accused petitioner was convicted under Section 29 of the Police Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days and a fine of Rs. 50/- which will not exceed his three months pay, in default, simple imprisonment for one month more. An appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Nowgong was dismissed.2. The prosecution case is that accused Sararam Keot belonged to the Darrang District Executive Police force and he deserted his duty with effect from 18.1.61, It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was absent in his barrack, and at parade on and from 18.1.61 to 21.1.61. But before a conviction under Section 29 of the Police Act could' be made, it had to be proved that the police officer was guilty of any violation of duty. It is not known whether absence of the petitioner from the barrack or at the parade was violation of duty. Dr. Medhi, appearing on behalf of the-petitioner argues that ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›