Guwahati Court August 1968 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.
Government of Manipur Vs. Thokchom Tomba Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-1968
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. This is a petition in revision filed by the Government of Manipur against the Order of Shri Y. Ibotombi Singh, Magistrate First Class, Manipur dated 25.8.1967 in refusing to obtain the finger impressions and specimen signatures of the accused in F.I.R. Case No. 195(8)67 M.I.P. Section under Section 409, I.P.C.2. The circumstances leading to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:On 18.7.1967 one Khumukwam Toyaima Singh, a village Pradhan, collected 15 quintals of rice and 15 quintals of atta from the Civil Supply Office for distribution to the villagers. But, the Pradhan, along with others, is alleged to have misappropriated the food grains by maintaining a register with fictitious names of some villagers, who did not receive any quantity of food grains. A case being F.I.R. Case No. 195 (8) 67 M.I.P.C. Under Section 409, I.P.C. was registered.3. The Investigating Officer seized a register containing thumb impressions and signatures. He arrest...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sabitri Devi Agarwalla
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1968
P.K. Goswami, J. 1. This reference involving two applications, one under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referredto as 'the old Act') and the other under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'), is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta, in respect of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The questions which have been referred to us may be set out: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notices to show cause under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were not validly served on the assessee ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, w...
Nripendra Chakravarty and ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.1. These are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaration that the orders of detention passed against the petitioners by the-respondent District Magistrate of Tripura under Sub-section (1), read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter called as the Act) are illegal and to release them from their detention.2. The respondent served all the petitioners (except the petitioner in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 72 of 1968) with orders as per Ext. A-l dated 9-2-68 under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act directing that they should be detained in the jail to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community in Tripura. They were all arrested on 11-2-68. They were served with grounds of detention under Section 7 of the Act on 15-2-68. The State Gove...
Ram Lakhan Rai Choudhary Vs. Raghunath Choudhary and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order passed under Section 146 (1B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate, First Class, Gauhati, in a Proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioner earlier unsuccessfully moved the learned Sessions Judge under Section 435/438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In this proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code, referring the matter to the Civil Court for a decision. The Sadar Munsiff in due course, after hearing the parties, held in favour of the first party possession. On receipt of this decision from the Civil Court, the learned Magistrate passed his order declaring the first party to be in possession in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court and it is this order which is being impugned in this revision application and it is also urged by Mr. Lahiri, the learned Counsel for t...
Boloram Baruati Vs. Mt. Surjya Baruati
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment, passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur.2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner married the Opposite Party, Mst. Surjya Baruati, on 14th September, 1962 according to Hindu rites and they were living as husband and wife for some time. A female child was born at wedlock. Thereafter, however, the petitioner deserted Mst. Surjya and married one Manorama Konwar on 8th September, 1965. On these allegations the petitioner was charged under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced as stated above.3. The only point which the learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before me is that the second marriage with Mst. Manorama has not been established by the Prosecution to have been solemnised as provided for under the law and that th...
Bhupati Goswami Vs. C.R. Krishnamurthi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and directed against the order of detention passed on 2nd March 1968 by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The facts appearing in the petition as well as in the counter-affidavit are as follows:The petitioner was arrested by the Police on 26th February 1968 at a place called Darrangagiri, Goalpara, under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was later taken to Gauhati under custody on 28th February 1968 and was lodged in Gauhati Jail. As many as five police cases were started against him by the Police while he was in detention. One o the cases ended in final report and the petitioner was discharged. While he was still in detention, he was served with the order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act issued by the District Magistrate and the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›