Guwahati Court May 1968 Judgments

Nasia Pradhan and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Guwahati

P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 304 part I read with Section 34 and also under Section 326 read with Section 34, l.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the first count and three years under the second count to run concurrently passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Upper Assam Districts at Dibrugarh.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Bharat Pradhan was in possession of a plot of land with bamboos standing thereon. There was already a dispute with respect to that land for which there was a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and the preliminary order was drawn on 14-5-1962 and also the land was attached on the same day, as will appear from Exhibit 2. It is said that the accused armed with axes and daos started cutting the bamboos on the land, whereupon the deceased Bharat Pradhan along with others went and protested, at which the accused persons dealt dao and ax...

Nasia Pradhan and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1970CriLJ396

P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 304 part I read with Section 34 and also under Section 326 read with Section 34, l.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the first count and three years under the second count to run concurrently passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Upper Assam Districts at Dibrugarh.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Bharat Pradhan was in possession of a plot of land with bamboos standing thereon. There was already a dispute with respect to that land for which there was a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and the preliminary order was drawn on 14-5-1962 and also the land was attached on the same day, as will appear from Exhibit 2. It is said that the accused armed with axes and daos started cutting the bamboos on the land, whereupon the deceased Bharat Pradhan along with others went and protested, at which the accused persons dealt dao and axe...

Nireswar Gogoi Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

P.K. Goswami, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 5(a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act (Assam Act XXII of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Assam Act', and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for another two months. This is the modified sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, in place of the earlier sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for two months, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sibsagar in the original trial.2. The facts are very brief. The Excise Inspector of Sonari accompanied by the Assistant Excise Inspector and some constables searched the house of the petitioner, hereinafter called the accused, on 13th October, 1963 and recovered from inside his dwelling house one 'Tema' containing six tolas of opium. The opium was seized by the Excise Inspector and the a...

Manihar Singh Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court: Guwahati

K.C. Sen, J.1. This is an application filed by Manihar Singh for a writ of certiorari or a writ of like nature for quashing the impugned order dated 29 January 1960 passed by respondent 1, the Superintendent of Police, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillong, and the order passed in appeal by respondent 3, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Range Assam, Gauhati, dated 24 June 1966. He has also prayed that a writ of mandamus or a writ of like nature should be Issued directing the respondents to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned orders as aforesaid.2. It appears from the petition that constable No. 405, Manihar Singh of Laban Beat House at Shillong, was chargesheeted for commission of alleged offences as mentioned in the chargesheet and ultimately after evidence was taken, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the constable.3. The main charge was that he Instigated a number of constables to approach the secretary of the Head Constables and Constab...

Longjam Thambalangou Singh and ors. Vs. Huidrom Tollamu Singh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 435, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Manipur dated 1.12.1967 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 480/67 dismissing the same, filed to set aside the order of the S.D.M., I.W. dated 8.11.1967 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 43 of 1967 filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are thus,: The Tronglaobi sub-fishery of Leitangpat Fishery No. 128 was de-reserved in 1960. The Chief Commissioner, Manipur, ordered on 1.7.1960 that the said fishery should be settled in favour of a Farming Co-Operative Society, formed by the landless people of a contiguous village, without prejudice to the interest of the Government in the Grassmahal. On the assurance given by the Settlement Department, the petitioners formed a Farming Co-operative Society in 1965-66. Even, prior to the year of de-reservation, the members of the Society including the petitioners reclaimed the lands and the petitioners were ...

Girish Chandra Goswami Vs. Roy (A.K.) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Dutta, C.J.1. The petitioner, Girish Chandra Goswami, was an assistant co-operative officer from 1960 till 28 February 1965. His case is as follows. On 13 August 1963, departmental proceedings were drawn up against him by Sri A. K. Roy, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, Shillong, on various charges. On 9 January 1964, Sri A. Ali, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, who was appointed as the enquiring officer, informed the petitioner that the evidence of about eleven persons would be taken on 22, 23 and 24 January 1964 and the petitioner was asked to be personally present at 10-30 a.m. at Hajo Inspection Bangalow on those days. The petitioner informed the enquiring officer on 20 January 1964 that as he was suffering from dysentery, it would not be possible for him to appear before the enquiring officer on 22 January 1964. This letter was duly received by the enquiring officer. The petitioner was again informed on 23 January 1964 that evidence of four persons ...