Guwahati Court June 1970 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.
Kamini Kumar Deb Barma Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-18-1970
R.S. Bindra, J.C.1. The appellant Kamini Kumar Deb Barma was tried on charges Under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, along with one Hari Mohan Choudhary, who was hauled up under the said two provisions read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge Shri T. K. Pal found the appellant guilty on both the charges and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. In addition, he sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 Under Section 5 (2) of the Act or in default two months' rigorous imprisonment. The other accused was acquitted. Kamini Kumar challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence in the instant appeal.2. The occurrence culminating in the prosecution of the two persons, each one of whom was then an Assistant Tahasildar, took place on 2nd of December, 1962, at Mohan-pur Bazar, Police Station Kotwali...
Jamini Kumar Ghose and anr. Vs. Sudhir Ranjan Poddar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-17-1970
R.S. Bindra, J.C.1. The facts bearing on this criminal revision petition filed by the convicts J. K. Chose and M. M. Ghose can be summarised in a few words. The respondent S. R. Poddar purchased 3 kanis of land from one Abdul Kahainan, on 6-1-J 961. On the west of that piece of land flows the river Gumti, It appears that consequent on change of course ot that river about 6 gandas of land were thrown up adjoining the land purchased by S. R. Poddar. After that accretion, S. R. Poddar sold back to Abdul Rahaman western 2 kanis out of 3 kanis and 6 gandas in his occupation. This piece of 2 kanis was then secured by the petitioners in a transaction of exchange from Abdul Rahaman, Subsequent to that exchange, a boundary dispute cropped up between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent having felt apprehensive that the petitioners would encroach upon some area in his occupation, he moved an application against them Under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1966. That...
Sapam Laingam Singh Vs. Kakyengpaibam Amuyaima Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-11-1970
R.S. Bindra, J.C.1. On the basis of complaint lodged by S. Leingam Singh on 13th November, 1963, under various sections of Indian Penal Code, the five respondents of this revision petition were summoned as accused and in course of time they were charged Under Sections 447 and 506, Indian Penal Code. The case was tried by Shri Upendra Singh, First Class Magistrate, Imphal, who convicted all the five accused on both the charges by his judgment dated 6-4-1967 and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 30/- on each count, or, in default, 30 days' rigorous imprisonment respecting each charge. The convicts went in appeal to the Court of Session and the Additional Sessions Judge Shri P. N. Roy, who heard the appeal, acquitted all the five accused on the finding that the complainant's version was not free from doubt and that it appeared that the accused had been falsely implicated clue to animosity which the complainant bore to them. It is against that appellate judgment of acquittal that the compla...
Ngangom Tomba Singh and ors. Vs. Sri Maibam Iboton Singh and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-08-1970
R.S. Bindra, J.C.1. By order dated 28th February, 1969 the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, held, in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C., that the first party, M. Iboton Singh, Chairman of Potsangbam Collective Farming Co-operative Society (proposed), was in actual and physical possession of the land in dispute, measuring about 20 pans, and so was entitled to retain that possession until ousted in due course of law. The . second party comprising of nine persons felt aggrieved and so went in revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge, who, by his order dated 24th of October, 1969, made a reference to this Court recommending that the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate should be set aside and instead the second party should be declared to be in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order, which was made on 13-11-1968.2. The correctness or otherwise of the recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge was hotly debated in this Court by the p...
Sidhinath Lahkar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against conviction Under Sections 323/448, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of fine of Rs. 300/- on each of the petitioners, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence, agreed with the findings of the trial Court and affirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The only point raised by Mr. Kataky, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the entire trial is vitiated as the trial court did not itself take cognizance of the offences Under Section 190 (l) (a), Cr.PC, and there, after follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XVI Chapter XVII and ultimately the provisions laid down Under Section 252 and the subsequent sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The material facts which are necessary to appreciate the above submission are as follows:-A complaint was filed against the accused under Sa. 448, 325, 321 and 379, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of ...
Ekdasi Gur and ors. Vs. Diptendra Mukherjee
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-03-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This Criminal revision is directed against an border of the learned Sessions Judge, Silchar; directing further enquiry in the case of ten accused persons who hive been discharged by the trial Court Under Section 251A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,2. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind and dealt with the matter perfunctorily. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge directed further enquiry into the ease against these diacharged accused Under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code.3. Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that since Under Section '251A trial has commenced, there is no meaning in sending a case for further enquiry. He seems to think that the enquiry is only possible by a Court after taking evidence as laid down Under Section 252, Criminal Procedure Code in Warrant cases instituted on complaint. This submission has no substance. When the Magistrate wil...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›